Wakilii

Royal Auto Parts Limited v BPI Uganda Investments Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2294 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 460 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of an order requiring payment of 30% security deposit pending determination of an appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicant remains subject to the Assistant Registrar's order requiring payment of 30% security deposit

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 court held that no valid appeal had been filed in the court's electronic register, rendering the application for stay without foundation. Even if an appeal existed, the applicant failed to satisfy the legal requirements for stay of execution: no imminent threat of execution was demonstrated, no substantial loss was established, and the appeal had minimal prospects of success given the mandatory nature of the 30% security deposit requirement under Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicant remains subject to the Assistant Registrar's order requiring payment of 30% security deposit

Facts

The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1301 of 2025 seeking an interim order to stop the sale of mortgaged property. On 6 October 2025, the Assistant Registrar granted the interim order restraining the respondent from selling the property, but required the applicant to deposit security of 30% of the outstanding loan balance (UGX 1,933,422,464.21, translating to UGX 580,026,739.50) within 30 days. The applicant filed this application for stay of that order, claiming the Assistant Registrar erred by failing to ascertain the exact value from which the 30% should be calculated. The applicant averred it had filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 056 of 2025 challenging the order. The respondent opposed the application, arguing the 30% requirement under Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 is mandatory and the amount was clearly stated in the pleadings.

Issues

  1. Whether the order requiring the applicant to pay a security deposit of 30% within 30 days vide Miscellaneous Application No. 1301 of 2025 should be stayed until the determination of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 056 of 2025.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Requirement of Valid Appeal
An application for stay of execution pending appeal must be predicated on a properly filed appeal. Where no appeal is reflected in the court's electronic register, there is no subsisting appeal to which the application for stay can attach, and the application must fail regardless of the merits of other grounds.
Stay of Execution — Legal Requirements
For a stay of execution to be granted, the applicant must satisfy multiple cumulative conditions: a notice of appeal has been filed; the appeal has a likelihood of success and is not frivolous; the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted; there is serious or imminent threat of execution; substantial loss may result unless stay is granted; the application has been made without unreasonable delay; refusal to grant stay would inflict more hardship than it would avoid; and the applicant has given security for due performance of the decree.
Mortgage Regulations — 30% Security Deposit Requirement
Under Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012, where a mortgagor seeks adjournment or stoppage of sale, the court may grant such relief upon payment of a security deposit of 30% of the forced sale value of the mortgaged property or the outstanding amount. This requirement is mandatory and the law does not leave to speculation or ambiguity the value from which the 30% is to be computed.
Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution
An imminent threat of execution refers to a situation where the applicant's interests face a danger that is both immediate and impending, rather than remote, uncertain, or merely contingent. In the absence of a warrant of attachment or notice to show cause, there is no imminent prospect of execution of the decree.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss refers to any loss of real worth or value as distinguished from a loss that is merely nominal, but does not mean the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when deprived of property in consequence of losing a case. Execution of a money decree is ordinarily not stayed since satisfaction of a money decree does not amount to substantial loss or irreparable injury where the respondent is not impecunious, as the remedy of restitution is available if the appeal is allowed.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (13)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Semakula Musoke and another v Loris Nabamba (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 22 of 2019)
  • Yorokamu Kasinde & another v Kihonde Samuel & another (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 259 of 2018)
  • Willis International Engineering and Contractors Ltd and another v DFCU Bank (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1000 of 2015)
  • Miao Huaxian v Crane Bank Limited and another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 935 of 2015)
  • Zubeda Muhamad & Anor v Laila Kaka Wallia & Anor (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Alice Wambui Nganga v John Ngure Kahoro and another, ELC Case No. 482 of 2017 (at Thika); [2021] eKLR
  • Erinford Properties Ltd v Cheshire County Council [1974] 412 All ER 448
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lussejere (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2003)
  • Emin Pasha Limited & 2 others v Equity Bank Uganda Limited & Anor (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 0049 of 2025)
  • Haruna Sentongo v I & M Bank Uganda Limited (Civil Application No. 03 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Royal Auto Parts Limited v BPI Uganda Investments Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2294 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 460 (12 November 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.