Mpower Oil (U) Limited v Norvik Hospital Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1113 of 2026)
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
Application for stay of execution pending appeal dismissed. The court found that the applicant satisfied two of the five conditions required for stay of execution (notice of appeal filed and application made without unreasonable delay), but failed to demonstrate imminent threat of execution, substantial loss, or adequate security. Critically, the applicant remained in contempt of a prior court order and had not purged itself of contempt. A party in contempt cannot be heard until the contempt is purged.
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicant must purge contempt before seeking further relief
Facts
The applicant, Mpower Oil (U) Limited, sought stay of execution of a judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 1219 of 2023 pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Judgment in the suit was delivered electronically on 8 December 2025. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 18 March 2026, three months and ten days after judgment. The stay application was filed on 19 May 2026. The respondent, Norvik Hospital Limited, had filed a garnishee application (Miscellaneous Application No. 0619 of 2026) to attach money in the applicant's bank accounts but no garnishee nisi had been ordered. The applicant was also found to be in contempt of court via Miscellaneous Application No. 0934 of 2025 and had not purged the contempt.
Issues
- Whether the Applicant has disclosed sufficient grounds for the reliefs sought
- What remedies are available to the parties
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
- Judicature Act Cap 16 s.37
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 43 Rule 4(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 43 Rule 4(3)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 43 Rule 4(5)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 Rule 3
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.101
- Evidence Act Cap 8 s.103
Cases cited (15)
- Musiitwa Kyazze v Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
- Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
- [2026] UGHC 467
- [2025] UGCommC 504
- Senkungu & 4 Ors v Mukasa (Civil Appeal 17 of 2014)
- Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (SCCA No. 28 of 1993)
- Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
- Uganda Revenue Authority v National Social Security Fund (Civil Application No. 43 of 2023)
- Brian Kigozi v Kirunda Moses Menya (Civil Application No. 136 of 2025)
- [2008] UGCA 6
- Kawanga v Namyalo & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
- DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Parsis Nakate Lusejjere (Civil Application 29 of 2003)
- Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 ALLER 579
- Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Vegol Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2864 of 2023)
- Wild life Lodges Ltd v County Council of Narok & Anor [2005] 2 EA 344
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.