Wakilii

Roughton International Ltd and Others v Uganda Investment Authority and Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (Civil Application No. 15 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 16 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for stay of execution of a High Court ruling pending appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs; interim stay of the second respondent's suspension proceedings lifted

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

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal dismissed an application for stay of execution of a High Court ruling that had dismissed the applicants' application for interim measures of protection pending arbitration. The Court held that the dismissal order was a negative order which did not positively determine rights, order any party to act or refrain from acting, and was therefore incapable of being executed and not amenable to a stay. As execution was not possible, the question of irreparable loss did not arise. The Court further noted the changed status quo (a new supervisor having been contracted) and the applicants' lack of vigilance in prosecuting both the appeal and the arbitration. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs; interim stay of the second respondent's suspension proceedings lifted

Facts

By agreement dated 19 August 2019, the applicants, a consortium of engineering consulting firms, were contracted by the Government of Uganda through the first respondent to supervise infrastructure development at Kampala Industrial and Business Park, Namanve, for Euros 8,805,781.4. By late 2022, disputes arose over alleged non-payment and alleged non-performance. On the Attorney General's advice, the first respondent issued a 60-day notice of termination and recommended the applicants' suspension from procurement to the second respondent. The applicants sought to refer the dispute to arbitration and commenced an application in the High Court (Commercial Division) for interim measures of protection under section 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. That application (Miscellaneous Cause No. 87 of 2022) was dismissed by Justice Susan Abinyo on 12 December 2022. The applicants filed a Notice of Appeal and, after their High Court stay application was dismissed, applied to the Court of Appeal to stay the High Court orders pending appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court order dismissing the applicants' application for interim measures of protection was a negative order incapable of being executed and therefore not amenable to a stay of execution.
  2. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
  • The orders staying the proceedings before the 2nd Respondent relating to the suspension hearing of the Applicants pending disposal of the application are lifted and/or set aside.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Negative Orders — Orders Incapable of Execution
An order dismissing an application does not positively determine the rights of the parties nor order any party to act or refrain from acting; it is a negative order incapable of being executed and is therefore not amenable to a stay of execution.
Stay of Execution — Irreparable Loss — Condition Precedent of Executability
Where execution is not a possibility because the order is negative, the issue of irreparable loss or damage cannot arise.
Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An applicant for stay of execution must prove that a Notice of Appeal has been lodged, that the appeal has a likelihood of success or a prima facie right to appeal, that irreparable damage will result or the appeal be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted, that the balance of convenience favours a stay, and that the application was made without delay.
Interlocutory Applications — Jurisdiction of a Single Justice of the Court of Appeal
Section 12 of the Judicature Act, being an Act of Parliament, overrides Rule 53 of the Court of Appeal Rules and is the primary legislation conferring jurisdiction on a single Justice to hear and determine interlocutory applications, including applications for stay of execution.
Stay of Execution — Vigilance of the Applicant — Discretionary Considerations
A litigant who demonstrates vigilance by proactively pursuing certification of the record and prosecuting the substantive appeal or arbitration elicits more favourable consideration of an application for stay than one who is less proactive.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Judicature Act s.12
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. No. 13-10 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. No. 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. No. 13-10 r.43(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. No. 13-10 r.53(2)
  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap 4 s.6
  • PPDA Act 2003
  • PPDA (Contracts) Regulations s.56(4)

Cases cited (6)

  • Jomayi Property Consultants Ltd v Andrew Maviiri (Civil Reference No. 174 of 2015)
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Finasi/Roko Construction SPV Ltd and Another v Roko Construction Ltd (Civil Application No. 220 of 2019)
  • Florah Ramarungu v DFCU Leasing Co. Ltd (Civil Application No. 11 of 2009)
  • Nakato Sarah and Another v James Busonga and Others (Civil Application No. 303 of 2023)

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.

Roughton International Ltd and Others v Uganda Investment Authority and Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority (Civil Application No. 15 of 2023) [2025] UGCA 16
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.