Wakilii

Ntwatwa Godfrey Kizza v Bank Of Baroda Uganda Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 2489 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 227 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of judgment pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed on preliminary objection

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 on preliminary objection. The court held that once the Court of Appeal had determined an application for stay of execution and found the underlying appeal incompetent, the High Court became functus officio and could not re-entertain the same relief. The application was barred by res judicata and constituted an abuse of court process, as it amounted to forum shopping after an unfavourable decision from a superior court.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed on preliminary objection

Facts

The applicant obtained an overdraft facility of UGX 300,000,000 from the first respondent bank, secured by land. Following default, the bank sold the land to the second respondent. The applicant sued in Civil Suit No. 302 of 2019 challenging the sale. Judgment was entered against him on 18 October 2023, ordering him to vacate within 30 days. He filed a notice of appeal on 26 October 2023 and lodged Civil Appeal No. 1552 of 2023 on 30 November 2023. The applicant filed applications for interim and substantive stay of execution before the High Court (MA 2605/2023), both dismissed for want of prosecution. He then filed an application for stay before the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 052 of 2024), which was dismissed in January 2025 on grounds that the appeal was incompetent for being filed out of time. Execution proceedings commenced under EMA No. 0308 of 2025. The applicant then filed the present application seeking stay of execution.

Issues

  1. Whether the present application for stay of execution is res judicata.
  2. Whether the present application constitutes an abuse of court process.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection upheld.
  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Res Judicata — Concurrent Jurisdiction of High Court and Court of Appeal
Where the High Court and the Court of Appeal exercise concurrent jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution, such jurisdiction is not successive or repetitive. Once a party invokes the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and that court pronounces itself on the matter, the High Court cannot thereafter re-entertain the same relief, as to do so would amount to the High Court sitting in review or appeal over the decision of a superior court.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Functus Officio — Effect of Court of Appeal Determination
A stay of execution is an accessory to an appeal. Once the Court of Appeal determines that the underlying appeal is incompetent, it effectively delivers a final decision on the life of any stay application. The High Court becomes functus officio in respect of the same application for stay of execution and cannot reopen the issue.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Abuse of Process — Forum Shopping
A party's trajectory of moving from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and, upon failure there, returning to the High Court seeking the same relief constitutes a misuse of judicial machinery and an abuse of court process. Such conduct undermines judicial hierarchy, encourages forum shopping, and may lead to conflicting decisions.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Broader Doctrine — Finality of Litigation
Beyond the strict requirements of section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, an application may be barred by the broader doctrine that litigation must come to an end, and that a party should not be permitted to re-litigate the same issue before different courts of competent jurisdiction in the hope of obtaining a favourable outcome.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Mansukhlal Ramji Karia & Anor v AC & 2 others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
  • Kamunye & others v the Pioneer General Assurance Society Ltd [1971] EA 263

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ntwatwa Godfrey Kizza v Bank Of Baroda Uganda Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 2489 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 227 (29 January 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.