Wakilii

Paul Kasulu v Nsiika Financial Services Ltd (Civil Suit No. 999 of 2025; Miscellaneous Application No. 439 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 171 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of proceedings in Civil Suit No. 999 of 2025 pending determination of Civil Suit No. 50 of 2026
Decision
Application for stay of proceedings dismissed with costs to the Respondent

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 court dismissed the application for stay of proceedings. Section 8(1) of the Human Rights Enforcement Act requires the presiding judge in the main suit to stay proceedings and determine human rights questions arising within that suit, not to stay separate proceedings. Section 11(2) applies only to criminal proceedings. Under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, a stay requires that the matter in issue be directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. The matters in Civil Suit No. 999 of 2025 (breach of contract and damages) and Civil Suit No. 50 of 2026 (human rights enforcement regarding failure to provide account statements) were not directly and substantially the same.

Outcome

Application for stay of proceedings dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The Applicant sued the Respondent in Civil Suit No. 999 of 2025 for breach of contract, seeking recovery of UGX 53,477,810 and various heads of damages. On 13 February 2026, the Applicant demanded a full statement of account from the Respondent, which was refused. The Applicant then instituted Civil Suit No. 50 of 2026 in the Civil Division seeking to enforce his right to a fair hearing and claiming the Respondent's failure to provide account statements violated his constitutional rights. The Applicant had previously filed HCMA No. 2347 of 2025 seeking discovery of documents, which was dismissed with costs on 23 January 2026. The Applicant then brought this application seeking to stay all proceedings in Civil Suit No. 999 of 2025 pending determination of Civil Suit No. 50 of 2026, arguing that proceeding without the financial records would render the court mathematically blind and that the Human Rights Enforcement Act mandated a stay.

Issues

  1. Whether all the proceedings in and arising from Civil Suit No. 999 of 2025 should be stayed pending the final determination of Civil Suit No. 50 of 2026 pending before the Civil Division.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Human Rights Enforcement Act — Section 8(1) — Stay of Proceedings — Application to Main Suit Only
Section 8(1) of the Human Rights Enforcement Act requires the presiding judge in the main suit to stay proceedings and determine human rights questions arising within that suit; it does not mandate the stay of separate proceedings in another court merely because a related human rights suit has been filed elsewhere.
Human Rights — Human Rights Enforcement Act — Section 11(2) — Scope of Application — Criminal Proceedings Only
Section 11(2) of the Human Rights Enforcement Act, which provides for declaring a trial a nullity where non-derogable rights have been infringed, applies only to criminal proceedings and has no application to civil proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings — Section 6 Civil Procedure Act — Requirements
Under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, a court shall not proceed with a suit where the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties pending in a court having jurisdiction; to warrant a stay, it must be established that the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same, the parties are the same, and the previously instituted suit is pending in a competent court.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings — Different Causes of Action — No Stay Warranted
Where one suit concerns breach of contract and recovery of money while another concerns enforcement of constitutional rights arising from failure to provide account statements, the matters in issue are not directly and substantially the same and no stay of proceedings is warranted under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (5)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Nakandi Hajara and Others v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 83 of 2020)
  • Springs International Hotel Ltd v Hotel Diplomate Ltd and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 227 of 2011)
  • Nakasero Market Sitting Vendors & Traders Ltd v Kampala Capital City Authority and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 348 of 2020)
  • Jadva Karsan v Harnam Singh Bhogal [1953] 20 EACA 74

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Paul Kasulu v Nsiika Financial Services Ltd (Civil Suit No. 999 of 2025; Miscellaneous Application No. 439 of 2026) [2026] UGCommC 171 (27 April 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.