Wakilii

Roko Construction Limited v Pramukh Steel Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 117 · 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 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

Application for stay of execution dismissed. The applicant failed to satisfy the essential requirements for a stay of execution pending appeal. The court found that the applicant did not provide a memorandum of appeal to demonstrate likelihood of success, did not show that substantial irreparable loss would result from execution, and did not prove the respondent impecunious such that restitution would be unavailable if the appeal succeeded. Satisfaction of a money decree does not ordinarily render an appeal nugatory where the judgment creditor is solvent.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant was the defendant in Civil Suit No. 990 of 2020 in which the respondent claimed USD 399,156,050 for unpaid steel products supplied. The respondent had supplied steel products worth USD 450,827,850 and the applicant paid only USD 51,671,800. On 3 October 2024, the High Court found in favour of the respondent and awarded USD 399,156,050 plus 10% interest from the date of filing until payment in full, and costs. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 15 October 2024. The respondent commenced execution proceedings on 13 January 2025. The applicant filed this application for stay of execution on 17 January 2025, seeking to preserve the status quo pending determination of the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether this application raises sufficient grounds for an order of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. Whether security for costs should be paid by the applicant.
  3. Whether the parties have remedies available to them.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant — Pending Appeal
An application for stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy several conditions: there must be a pending appeal; the appeal must have a likelihood of success; substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made; the application must be made without unreasonable delay; security must be given for due performance of the decree; there must be serious or imminent threat of execution that would render the appeal nugatory; and refusal to grant the stay would inflict more hardship than it would avoid.
Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success — Memorandum of Appeal Required
To establish that an appeal has a likelihood of success, the applicant must provide the court with a memorandum of appeal. Without a memorandum of appeal, the court cannot assess whether the appeal raises triable issues with a realistic chance of success or whether the appellate court would reasonably come to a different conclusion from the trial court.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Irreparable Harm Required
To satisfy the requirement of substantial loss, an applicant must demonstrate that the harm caused would not only be substantial but also irreparable. It is not sufficient to show only a possibility of loss. Substantial loss refers to loss of real worth or value as distinguished from loss that is merely nominal. Satisfaction of a money debt owed by the applicant does not amount to substantial loss.
Stay of Execution — Money Decrees — Nugatory Appeal Test
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 applicant must show the respondent to be impecunious; otherwise the presumption is that payment made in execution of the decree will be reversible if the appeal succeeds.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa v Itobu Margareet (HCMA No. 160 of 2020)
  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Formula Feeds Limited and 3 Others v KCB Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 331
  • Kabarema Adonia v Natukunda Marion (Miscellaneous Application No. 264 of 2021)

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 (Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 117 (4 June 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.