Wakilii

Namanya Robert Mujuni v Bakunda Patrick [2025] UGCOMMC 560

High Court · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from judgment in Civil Suit No. 860 of 2019
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

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 an application for stay of execution pending appeal. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the appeal had a reasonable likelihood of success, that substantial loss would result if execution proceeded, or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory. The applicant also failed to furnish security for due performance of the decree as required under Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment against the applicant in Civil Suit No. 860/2019 for recovery of UGX 91,000,000 arising from unpaid friendly loan facilities advanced in 2016 and 2017. Judgment was entered on 27 January 2023 ordering payment of the outstanding sum plus interest at 20% per annum and costs. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 10 February 2023 and lodged Civil Appeal No. 137/2023. The respondent commenced execution proceedings via EMA No. 436/2024 on 13 September 2024, seeking recovery by way of arrest and detention in civil prison. The applicant filed this application for stay of execution on 4 December 2024, arguing that the appeal had high chances of success and that civil detention would cause irreparable harm.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises sufficient grounds for an order of stay of execution.
  2. Whether security for costs should be paid by the applicant.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Likelihood of Success
An applicant for stay of execution must demonstrate that the appeal has a realistic chance of success, not merely that it is arguable or not hopeless. The court must be satisfied that the prospects of success are not remote. General grounds of appeal without further demonstration of their merit are insufficient to establish likelihood of success.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Proof Required
Substantial loss refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value as distinguished from loss that is merely nominal. It is not sufficient to show a possibility of loss; the applicant must demonstrate that the harm would be both substantial and irreparable. General assertions without specific demonstration of substantial loss do not satisfy this requirement.
Stay of Execution — Appeal Rendered Nugatory — Monetary Decrees
Satisfaction of monetary awards does not ordinarily pose the danger of rendering a pending appeal nugatory where the respondent is not impecunious, as the remedy of restitution is available to the applicant in the event the appeal is allowed. Arrest and detention in execution of a money decree, while inconvenient, does not necessarily render an appeal nugatory as any inconvenience can be appropriately remedied if the appeal succeeds.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Mandatory Requirement
Under Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it is a mandatory requirement that execution is stayed only on condition that the applicant has before or at the filing of the substantive application furnished security for due performance of the decree. A mere statement of willingness to furnish security, without actual provision of security, does not satisfy this requirement.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (7)

  • Theodore Ssekikuubo & 3 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Miscellaneous Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Isagara Patrick v Prompt Facilities (Miscellaneous Application No. 99 of 2021)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and Ors v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 331
  • Formula Feeds Limited & 3 Others v KCB Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Kabarema Adonia v Natukunda Marion (Miscellaneous Application No. 264 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namanya Robert Mujuni v Bakunda Patrick 2025 UGCommC 560 (7 June 2025)
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.