Wakilii

Pona Restaurant aka Ponnus Restaurant v HMH Rainbow Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0692 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 258 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending appeal from Magistrates Court judgment
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 of a money decree pending appeal. The court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. There was no imminent threat of execution as no application for execution had been filed. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss beyond ordinary loss faced by judgment debtors, particularly where the decree was monetary and the respondent was not shown to be impecunious. No security for costs or due performance had been deposited despite the applicant's stated willingness to do so.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The Respondent obtained judgment against the Applicant in Civil Suit No. 0765 of 2022 in the Magistrates Court for recovery of UGX 11,020,490 arising from breach of a sale of goods contract. The Applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 0076 of 2024 in the High Court. The Applicant first sought stay of execution from the Magistrates Court, which was denied on grounds that the Applicant failed to meet the requirements for grant of stay. The Applicant then filed the present application in the High Court seeking stay of execution, contending that the Respondent had filed a bill of costs and was in the process of execution. The Applicant expressed willingness to furnish a bank guarantee as security. The Respondent opposed the application, arguing that the decree was monetary and recoverable, that no application for execution had been filed, and that the appeal lacked merit.

Issues

  1. Whether the execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 0765 of 2022 should be stayed pending the determination of the appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — All Mandatory Requirements Must Be Met
All conditions laid down by Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules must be fulfilled before execution can be stayed, including that substantial loss may result to the applicant, that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution — Filing of Bill of Costs Insufficient
An order of stay will issue only if there is actual or presently threatened execution. There must be unequivocal evidence showing unconditional steps that convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution, such as extracting the decree, presenting and having a bill of costs taxed, issuance of a warrant of execution, or issuing a notice to show cause why execution should not issue. Filing a bill of costs alone does not constitute an imminent threat of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Money Decrees
Execution of a money decree ordinarily does not amount to substantial loss or irreparable injury to the applicant where the respondent is not impecunious, as the remedy of restitution is available to the applicant in the event the appeal is allowed. The words 'substantial loss' must mean something in addition to and different from the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when he loses his case and is deprived of his property in consequence.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Actual Deposit Required
The requirement under Order 43 Rule 4(3)(c) that security be given for due performance of the decree is not satisfied by a mere expression of willingness to deposit security. Actual deposit of security for costs or due performance is required before a stay of execution can be granted.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (12)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa v Itobu Margret (HCMA No. 0160 of 2022)
  • Ntege Mayambala v Christopher Mwanje (HCMA No. 72 of 1991)
  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo & others v Attorney General & others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Formula Feeds Ltd v KCB Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Baguma Paul T/A Panache Associates v Eng. Karuma Kagyina (HCMA No. 0460 of 2020)
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Zaabwe & Others (HCMA No. 19 of 2006)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Coqecot Cotton Co. SA (1995-1998) 1 E.A 312
  • Bansidhav v Pribku Dayal AIR 41 1954
  • Kisaalu Joseph & 10 others v Nakintu May & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 0105 of 2020)
  • Shem Mpanga Mukasa & Anor v Kizza Clessy Barya (Miscellaneous Application No. 0479 of 2021)
  • Wandera Michael v Baguma Samalie (Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pona Restaurant aka Ponnus Restaurant v HMH Rainbow Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0692 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 258 (19 May 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.