Wakilii

Salim Kisekka v Burkesy Motors (U) Ltd and Another [2026] UGHCCD 225

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of a Chief Magistrate's Court decree pending determination of a civil revision application
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs; execution of the magistrate's court decree permitted to proceed

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 court dismissed an application for stay of execution of a magistrate's court default judgment pending revision. Applying J.K. Industries Ltd v Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd, it held that the conditions for stay are cumulative: an arguable revision with likelihood of success, substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security for due performance. The applicant's bare denial of service, unsupported by expert or other cogent evidence, could not displace a process server's affidavit of service; a grievance about service raises no ground under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act. Lawful execution, including arrest and civil imprisonment, is not irreparable loss, political inconvenience is irrelevant, delay of about one year was inordinate, and mere willingness to give security is not security.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs; execution of the magistrate's court decree permitted to proceed

Facts

The respondents obtained judgment against the applicant in Mengo Chief Magistrate's Court Civil Suit No. 0894 of 2024, a summary suit commenced by specially endorsed plaint under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Default judgment was entered after the applicant filed no application for leave to appear and defend. A decree and warrant of arrest were extracted in November 2024. The applicant claimed he was never served with summons, that the signature attributed to him was forged, that alleged WhatsApp service was false, and that he only learnt of the suit at execution stage. He filed a civil revision application and, in December 2025, this application for stay of execution, asserting that arrest and committal to civil prison would irreparably harm his liberty, dignity and public standing, including his ambitions as an NRM flag bearer, and undertaking to comply with any conditions imposed. The respondents relied on an affidavit of service sworn by court process server Kijjambu Tyron, deposing that on 15 October 2024 he personally served the applicant with the summons and plaint at his known place of abode, that the applicant accepted service and undertook to settle the debt within three days, and that the documents were also sent by WhatsApp. No proof of filing the revision was annexed.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant made out sufficient cause for the grant of an order of stay of execution pending determination of a civil revision application.
  2. Whether a bare denial of service, unsupported by cogent evidence, displaces a process server's affidavit of service.
  3. Whether imminent arrest and civil imprisonment pursuant to lawful execution amount to substantial or irreparable loss.

Orders

  • The application is hereby dismissed.
  • Execution of the decree in Mengo Chief Magistrate's Court Civil Suit No. 0894 of 2024 may proceed.
  • Costs of the application are granted to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Cumulative Conditions for Grant
The conditions for granting a stay of execution are cumulative: the applicant must show that the intended appeal or revision raises arguable grounds with a likelihood of success, that substantial loss will result if stay is refused, that the application was brought without unreasonable delay, and that security for due performance of the decree has been furnished; failure to satisfy any one condition is fatal.
Evidence — Affidavit of Service — Burden of Rebuttal by Party Denying Service
An affidavit of service sworn by a court process server carries a presumption of regularity, and the burden lies on the party denying service to rebut it by cogent evidence; a bare denial coupled with an unsubstantiated allegation of forgery, without a handwriting expert report or other supporting material, cannot outweigh the process server's sworn testimony.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Lawful Execution and Civil Imprisonment
Substantial loss must be proved by specific facts and not general assertions, and loss flowing from the lawful execution of a valid decree, including arrest and committal to civil prison, does not by itself amount to irreparable loss; prejudice to a litigant's political ambitions is not a legal ground for stay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Willingness Insufficient
A mere expression of willingness to comply with conditions or to furnish security does not satisfy the requirement of security for due performance of the decree, which is mandatory and not ornamental.
Civil Procedure — Revision — Scope of Section 83 Civil Procedure Act
Revision under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act lies only where the subordinate court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or acted illegally or with material irregularity or injustice; a factual grievance about service, where prima facie service is established, discloses no illegality in the entry of default judgment and no prima facie likelihood of success on revision.
Civil Procedure — Summary Suits under Order 36 — Proper Remedy Against Default Judgment
Where a suit is instituted by specially endorsed plaint under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the defendant fails to apply for leave to appear and defend, the defendant cannot remain inactive until execution and then invoke equitable relief; the successful litigant's right to enjoy the fruits of a lawful judgment must be weighed against the applicant's right to pursue the challenge.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (15)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Tusubira Wilberforce v Mukwaya Edward (Miscellaneous Application No. 3378 of 2024)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (1999) 2 EA 22
  • Nakanjako Kuluthum v Nabweteme Shemah and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1596 of 2025)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)
  • Muhorro Town Council v Rutalihamu Jacob (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2022)
  • J.K. Industries Ltd v Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd (Civil Application No. 12 of 1995)
  • Jabi v Mbale Municipal Council (1975) HCB 191
  • Musa Ismail v Wakiso District Land Board (Civil Suit No. 104 of 2015)
  • J.K. Patel v Spear Motors Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1991)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 11
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1998)
  • Ndugwa v Rwabogo [2004] 2 EA 123
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Salim Kisekka v Burkesy Motors (U) Ltd and Another [2026] UGHCCD 225 (30 June 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.