Wakilii

Old Stanley Hotel Ltd v Select Garments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 801 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 411 · 2025 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 the Court of Appeal
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

Application for stay of execution dismissed. The applicant failed to prove that the appeal had a likelihood of success or that execution of a monetary decree would render the appeal nugatory or cause irreparable damage. Where execution involves payment of money that can be reversed if the appeal succeeds, and the respondent's solvency is not challenged, the appeal will not be rendered nugatory.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

Old Stanley Hotel Ltd was the unsuccessful party in Civil Suit No. 674 of 2014, judgment delivered on 29 October 2024. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 5 November 2024 and lodged a memorandum of appeal on 11 April 2025 vide Civil Appeal No. 241 of 2025. Select Garments Ltd extracted the decree on 1 April 2025 and filed a bill of costs totalling UGX 83,681,635 for taxation on 15 April 2025. The applicant filed this application on 15 April 2025 seeking to stay execution pending determination of the appeal, alleging imminent threat of execution and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory. The respondent opposed, contending that execution of a monetary decree does not render an appeal nugatory and that the applicant had not demonstrated likelihood of success.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds for the grant of an order of stay of execution?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
For a stay of execution to be granted pending appeal, the applicant must prove that conditions exist to warrant the court exercising its discretion in the applicant's favour, including: (a) a pending appeal with a likelihood of success; (b) a serious or imminent threat of execution; (c) that the applicant will suffer irreparable damage and the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted; and (d) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Monetary Decrees — Appeal Not Rendered Nugatory
Satisfaction of a money decree 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. The presumption is that payment made to the respondent in execution of the decree will be reversible in the event of the applicant succeeding on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Irreparable Damage — Burden of Proof
An applicant seeking stay of execution must not only show that he or she will suffer substantial loss or damage, but that such loss shall be irreparable. Where the applicant contends that execution will cause irreparable reputational damage but fails to demonstrate how such damage will arise from execution of a monetary decree, the requirement is not satisfied.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (17)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Andrew Oluka v CNOOC Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 514 of 2022)
  • Ejulu Martin v Itobu Margret (Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of 2022)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Gapco Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa Badru & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tadjin Hussein & Others [2008] ULR 310
  • Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Company Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2019)
  • Mugume Ben & Another v Akankwasa Edward [2008] ULR 682
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2015)
  • National Enterprises Corporation v Mukisa Foods Ltd (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 07 of 1998)
  • Olivia da Ritta Siqueira E Facho v Siqueira [1933] 15 KLR 34
  • Jadva Karsan v Harnam Singh Bhogal [1953] 20 EACA 74
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and 3 Others v the Attorney General and 4 Others (Supreme Court Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v East African Property Holding Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2014)
  • Eriabu Kabigiza v Lawrence Sserwanja [1975] HCB 199
  • Formula Feeds Limited and 3 Others v KCB Bank Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Joel Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Old Stanley Hotel Ltd v Select Garments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 801 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 411 (11 November 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.