Wakilii

Mona International Cargo & Management Co. Ltd and Others v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 37 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 114 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending appeal from dismissal of application to set aside default judgment
Decision
Application dismissed; execution to proceed

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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

The High Court dismissed the application for stay of execution, holding that the intended appeal was incompetent as it was filed without mandatory leave of court under Section 76 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court found inordinate delay of over twelve months in bringing the application, that no substantial loss would result from a money decree given the respondent bank's solvency, and that the applicants failed to provide liquid or unencumbered security as the properties offered were either subject to fraud litigation or already mortgaged to third parties.

Outcome

Application dismissed; execution to proceed

Facts

The respondent bank granted an agricultural credit facility of UGX 1,500,000,000 to the 1st applicant in January 2019, secured by personal guarantees from the other applicants. Following alleged default, the bank obtained a default judgment for UGX 1,766,849,761 plus interest and costs on 25 October 2023. The applicants' subsequent application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed on 13 November 2024. Two further applications for extension of time and leave to appeal were also dismissed. The applicants then engaged new counsel and filed a notice of appeal against the dismissal of their set-aside application, alongside this application for stay of execution filed on 24 December 2025. The applicants claimed they were never served with the summons and that the bank breached contract by failing to disburse the full loan amount. The bank contended that service was proper, the judgment was regular, and that the properties offered as security were either subject to fraud litigation or already mortgaged to other creditors.

Issues

  1. Whether there are grounds for an order for stay of execution pending appeal?

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 0037 of 2026 is hereby dismissed.
  • The stay of execution is denied, and the Respondent may proceed with execution in HCCS No. 581 of 2023.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Requirement of Valid Pending Appeal — Mandatory Leave for Interlocutory Appeals
An appeal from an interlocutory ruling such as the dismissal of an application to set aside a judgment requires the mandatory leave of court under Section 76 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 44 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. A notice of appeal filed without the requisite leave is a nullity and cannot form the basis of an application for stay of execution.
Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay — Twelve Month Delay Fatal to Discretionary Relief
Where an applicant waits over twelve months after the dismissal of their set-aside application before filing a motion for stay of execution, such delay is inordinate and fatal to the grant of discretionary relief. Equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Money Decrees and Refundability
Execution of a money decree does not ordinarily cause irreparable damage, as money can be refunded if the appeal succeeds. Substantial loss only arises if the respondent is shown to be impecunious or likely to evade a refund. Where the decree holder is a solvent, regulated financial institution capable of refunding the decretal sum, no substantial loss as defined by law will result from the refusal of a stay.
Stay of Execution — Security for Decree — Requirement of Liquid and Unencumbered Assets
Security offered for a stay of execution must be liquid and unencumbered. An applicant cannot claim to have given sufficient security by offering properties that are either embroiled in fraud litigation or being sold off by third-party creditors. The law does not envisage that a successful litigant should be exposed to the risk of a hollow victory due to the evasiveness or financial incapacity of the judgment debtor.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (21)

  • Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Tobacco Co. S.A.R.L & Anor vs. British American Tobacco (U) Ltd
  • Timber and General Stores Ltd & Anor. vs. Ismail Mugoda
  • Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)
  • National Council for Higher Education v Anifa Kawooya Bangirana (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 4 of 2011)
  • General Medical Council V Spackman AC 627
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v The Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa Vs. Katende HCB 65
  • Kavuma Vs. Hotel International Ltd
  • Dr. Ahmed Mohhamad Kisule v Greenland Bank (In liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2010)
  • Beeline Travel v Finance Trust Bank (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 296 of 2023)
  • David Muhenda v Humphrey Mirembe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2012)
  • Roko Construction v Pramukh Steel Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 275 of 2025)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Abatyo Agencies Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2012)
  • P.K Sengendo v Busulwa Lawrence & Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2014)
  • Luwa Luwa Investment v URA (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1336 of 2022)
  • Rosengrens Ltd. v. Safe Deposit Centres Ltd. 3 ALLER 198
  • Nduhiu Gitahi v. Warugongo K.L.R. 621
  • Stanbic Bank Limited v Kesacon Services Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 724 of 2023)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Ggalabi Godfrey v Harriet Kizito (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mona International Cargo & Management Co. Ltd and Others v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 37 of 2026) [2026] UGCommC 114 (20 March 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.