Wakilii

M/s Mukono Bookshop Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd v Magdalene Lamwaka (Miscellaneous Application No. 846 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 36 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim stay of execution pending determination of substantive stay application, arising from judgment in Civil Suit No. 326 of 2014
Decision
Application for interim stay of execution dismissed; substantive stay application to proceed to hearing

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

An interim stay of execution requires a pending appeal, a substantive stay application, and a real imminent threat of execution. Where a full appeal has been filed and is pending before the Court of Appeal, production of a Notice of Appeal is not mandatory. The applicant must demonstrate compelling circumstances warranting intervention before the substantive stay application is heard. The court dismissed the application where no imminent threat was established beyond scheduled execution proceedings.

Outcome

Application for interim stay of execution dismissed; substantive stay application to proceed to hearing

Facts

The applicant, a judgment debtor, sought an interim stay of execution of a High Court judgment delivered on 25 February 2019 in Civil Suit No. 326 of 2014. The applicant had filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 308 of 2019) which remained pending in the Court of Appeal. The respondent, the judgment creditor, commenced execution proceedings on 22 September 2025 by filing Execution Application No. 96 of 2025 and issued a Notice to Show Cause on 1 October 2025 for payment of UGX 778,152,775. The applicant filed a substantive application for stay of execution (Miscellaneous Application No. 845 of 2025) and sought an interim stay pending determination of that substantive application. The respondent opposed, arguing the appeal had been abandoned for over five years, the interim application was defective because the affidavit served was unsigned, and there was no imminent threat of execution.

Issues

  1. Whether sufficient grounds exist for the issuing of an interim order of stay of execution pending determination of the substantive application for stay of execution.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • Substantive application fixed for hearing on 04/03/2026.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Interim Stay — Conditions for Grant
For an interim order of stay of execution to be granted, the court must be satisfied that a Notice of Appeal has been lodged, a substantive application for stay of execution is pending before court, and there is a serious threat of execution before the hearing of the substantive application.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal — When Production Mandatory
The requirement for lodgment of a Notice of Appeal is only mandatory where an appeal has not been filed. Where an appeal has been filed and is pending, it is not mandatory to produce a Notice of Appeal for purposes of an interim stay application. The requirement of a pending appeal is satisfied if one can show that there is a pending appeal in the absence of a Notice of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Interim Stay — Not a Formality
An interim order of stay of execution is not granted as a mere formality. The decision to grant an interim stay is not a mechanical box-ticking exercise, as that would amount to an abuse of process. The discretion to grant or refuse an interim stay must be exercised judiciously.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat — Standard of Proof
For an interim stay, it is sufficient for the applicant to show that a substantive application is pending and that there is real and imminent threat of execution before that substantive application can be heard. The applicant must demonstrate compelling circumstances that warrant the court's intervention before the hearing of the main application. Mere commencement of execution proceedings without more does not establish the requisite imminent threat.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Service Defects — Effect on Competence of Application
Where an application filed in court has a supporting affidavit bearing the deponent's signature, the fact that the respondent was served with a copy alleged to have no signature does not render the application incompetent. It is the substance rather than the form of an application which is material, and errors and lapses should not necessarily debar a litigant from the pursuit of his rights.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • Zubeda Mohammed and Another v Laila Walia and Another (Supreme Court Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
  • Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
  • Sulaiti Bakulu Mpagi and Another v Kasozi Leonard (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 798 of 2022)
  • EB Nyakana & Sons Ltd v Beatrice Kobusigye and 16 Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 13 of 2017)
  • Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Company Limited (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 35 of 2019)
  • Brooke Bond Liebig Vs Mallya [1975] EA 266
  • In Re Namatovu Christine Tebajjukira [1992-93] HCB 85
  • James Bahinguza and Another v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 269 of 2013)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

M_s Mukono Bookshop Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd v Magdalene Lamwaka (Miscellaneous Application No. 846 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 36 (23 February 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.