Wakilii

Roko Construction Limited v Pramukh Steel Limited (Civil Application No. 275 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 224 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for stay of execution pending appeal, arising from a Commercial Court judgment.
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; the decree of the Commercial Court stands and remains executable.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 single Justice dismissed an application for stay of execution of a money decree of USD 399,156.05 plus interest. The applicant did not dispute receiving the goods or the sum owed, and had acknowledged the debt and proposed a payment plan. The court held that execution of a money decree does not ordinarily cause irreparable damage or render an appeal nugatory because money can be refunded; the applicant offered no security for due performance, the notice of appeal was served three months out of time contrary to Rule 78(1), and the application was an abuse of process. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who was entitled to the fruits of its judgment.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; the decree of the Commercial Court stands and remains executable.

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant in Commercial Court Civil Suit No. 990 of 2020 for recovery of USD 399,156.05 for steel products supplied. By ruling of 3 October 2024, Hon. Lady Justice Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti ordered the applicant to pay that sum plus interest at 10% and costs, relying on a report from a court-appointed auditor. The applicant did not dispute receiving the goods or the amount due, faulting only the procedure of the auditor's appointment. It lodged a notice of appeal and sought a stay of execution in the High Court (MA No. 074 of 2025), which was dismissed. The respondent then proceeded with execution (EMA No. 0017 of 2025), advertising the applicant's attached property for sale. The applicant brought this application contending its property, including tools of trade and assets used for government contracts, would be irreparably lost. The applicant had also, in correspondence of 11 June 2025, acknowledged the outstanding sum and proposed a payment plan.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending the determination of its appeal.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An applicant for a stay of execution pending appeal must show that a notice of appeal has been lodged, that substantial or irreparable loss may result unless the stay is granted, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and that the applicant is prepared to give security for the due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Money Decrees and Irreparable Damage
Execution of a money decree does not ordinarily cause irreparable damage or render an appeal nugatory, because the sum paid can be refunded if the appeal succeeds; a stay will generally be refused unless the applicant shows that the decree holder could not refund the money should the appeal succeed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
The failure of an applicant to offer or undertake to deposit security for the due performance of a money decree is a significant factor weighing against the grant of a stay of execution, as it protects the decree holder from undue prejudice.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Fruits of Litigation and Balance of Convenience
A successful litigant is entitled to enjoy the fruits of the judgment, and a stay of execution should not be granted merely to delay satisfaction of a lawful judgment where the applicant does not dispute the underlying liability.
Civil Procedure — Notice of Appeal — Late Service under Rule 78(1)
Where a notice of appeal is served on the affected party well beyond the seven days required by Rule 78(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules, the validity of the appeal is questionable and an application for stay of execution founded upon it lacks a valid basis.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (23)

  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Attorney General v Eddie Kwizera (Supreme Court Constitutional Application No. 7 of 2020)
  • Legal Brains Trust (LBT) v Attorney General (COACA No. 56 of 2023)
  • Maj. Gen. James Kazini v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2009)
  • Ali Muwanga Kibirige v Yako Bank Uganda Limited & Anor (Civil Application No. 750 of 2024)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358
  • TROPICAL COMMODIIIES SUPPLIES LTD V INTERNATIONAL CREDIT BANK (IN LIQUIDATION) EA 331
  • China Henan International Cooperation Group Co. Ltd v Justus Kyabahwa (HCMA No. 875 of 2022)
  • Porambot Breweries Ugonda Limited (ln receivership) v Standard Chartered Bonk Ugonda Limited & Another, UGCA362
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Misc. Civil Application No. 347 of 2013)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 78 of 1990)
  • Mutegeki v Tibokunirwa & Another, UGCA776
  • Eruket v Okonye & Another, UGCA44
  • Olum Thomos & Bogonza Alex v Akongo Morotino & Oroch Som, UGCA 38
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Katende Nasser [1985] HCB 43
  • P.K Sengendo v Busulwa Lawrence & Another (Civil Application No. 207 of 2014)
  • Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority v Kayumba [2014] UGCA 129
  • Kisuule v Greenland Bank (in liquidation) (Supreme Court Misc. Application No. 7 of 2010)
  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Ors vs The Attorney General
  • Swanya Ltd v Daima Bank Ltd (Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 45 of 2001)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Abatyo Agencies Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2012)
  • Haruna Sentongo v I & M Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 173 of 2023) [2023] UGCA 753
  • The officiar Receiver v Mugo Mukunya ond Another Noirobi Civir Apprication No. 2007

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Roko Construction Limited v Pramukh Steel Limited (Civil Application No. 275 of 2025) [2025] UGCA 224 (17 July 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.