Wakilii

Registered Trustees of Juma & Zukuuli Group Uganda v Sheikh Muhamadi Kasamba Tiwayilika and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 467 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 37 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of orders in Miscellaneous Cause No. 166 of 2022 pending determination of review application
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 brought under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, holding that the provision applies only where there is a pending appeal. The court found that the correct provision was Order 22 Rule 26, which requires simultaneous pending execution proceedings and a suit by the judgment debtor against the decree holder. The applicant failed to demonstrate pending execution proceedings and brought the application nine months after the orders, constituting inordinate delay.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicant, Registered Trustees of Juma & Zukuuli Group Uganda, sought to stay execution of orders made in Miscellaneous Cause No. 166 of 2022 pending determination of its review application (Miscellaneous Application No. 1002 of 2024). The applicant contended it was never a party to the original proceedings yet was affected by the orders. The applicant alleged that the respondents were executing the orders by demanding funds from tenants and attempting to change signatories on property titles. The orders in the original cause were issued on 4 September 2024. The applicant filed its review application in October 2024 and the present stay application on 13 June 2025, approximately nine months after the original orders. The respondents opposed the application, arguing it was incompetent, that the orders had already been implemented, and that there were no pending execution proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution was brought under the correct legal provision.
  2. Whether the conditions for granting a stay of execution under Order 22 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules were satisfied.
  3. Whether the applicant demonstrated that substantial loss would result if the stay was not granted.
  4. Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Applicable Provisions — Order 43 Rule 4 vs Order 22 Rule 26
Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies only where there is a pending appeal to the High Court or Court of Appeal and cannot be invoked to stay execution pending determination of a review application.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Order 22 Rule 26 Requirements
For a stay of execution to be granted under Order 22 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, there must be simultaneous proceedings in the same court: pending execution proceedings by the decree holder against the judgment debtor, and a pending suit by the judgment debtor against the decree holder.
Statutory Interpretation — Use of Headings in Delegated Legislation
Headings in delegated legislation may be referred to as interpretive aids, serving as a brief guide to the material to which they relate, though they may not be comprehensive and their function is limited to guidance rather than determinative interpretation.
Civil Procedure — Defective Citation of Legal Provisions — Curable Irregularity
Where an application cites the wrong legal provision but the court has jurisdiction to grant the order sought, the irregularity can be ignored and the correct law inserted, provided the substantive requirements of the correct provision are satisfied.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • GAPCO Uganda v Kaweesa and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Uganda Law Society and Another v Mugisha Hashim Mugisha and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 99 of 2025)
  • R (Toth) v Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal [2001] EWHC Admin 240
  • Brown v Innovatorone plc [2009] EWHC 1376 (Comm)
  • Shaukat Hussain Alias Ali Akram and Others v SMT. Bhuneshwari Devi (1973 AIR 528)
  • Saggu v Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd [2002] 1 EA 258

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Registered Trustees of Juma & Zukuuli Group Uganda v Sheikh Muhamadi Kasamba Tiwayilika and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 467 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 37 (23 February 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.