Wakilii

Sarick Construction Ltd and Others v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2982 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 9 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending determination of review application
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

The court dismissed the application for stay of execution pending review. The applicants failed to satisfy the test for stay of execution: there was inordinate delay in filing the application (14 months after judgment), no proof of imminent threat of execution, and no demonstration of irreparable harm. The court held that a mortgagor cannot claim substantial loss once property is mortgaged, and that monetary claims do not warrant stay absent proof the judgment creditor cannot repay if the review succeeds.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent bank advanced loan facilities to the first applicant between 2019 and 2022, secured by mortgages over properties at Sekiuhnga, Wakiso District. The first applicant defaulted and the bank obtained a decree in Originating Summons No. 015 of 2023 for recovery of UGX 14,357,098,702 and foreclosure. The applicants filed a review application (MA 2168 of 2025) claiming new evidence from an audit showing they were not indebted to that amount. While the review was pending with ruling scheduled for 10 February 2026, the applicants sought stay of execution, citing an eviction notice dated 14 October 2025. The bank opposed, noting the applicants had acknowledged indebtedness in earlier proceedings and had filed multiple unsuccessful applications seeking time to pay.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has proven sufficient grounds to warrant the stay of the execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 015 of 2024?

Orders

  • The Applicants' application is dismissed.
  • The Applicants shall bear the Respondent's costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Pending Review Application
Under Order 22 rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has discretion to stay execution where a suit is pending against the decree holder, and the primary requirement is the existence of a pending suit. While Order 43 rule 4(3) provides guidelines (substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, security for due performance), these are not strict conditions for stay pending review as they are for stay pending appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay
An application for stay of execution must be made within a reasonable time. The reasonableness of delay depends on the circumstances of each case, including the delay period, causes of delay, and overall demeanor of the parties. A delay of 14 months between judgment and application for stay, where the applicant claims to rely on new evidence from an audit, constitutes inordinate delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Threat of Execution — Burden of Proof
An application for stay of execution is premised on a threat of execution. Whether there is a serious imminent threat of execution is a question of fact requiring proof. Where an applicant alleges an eviction notice but fails to attach it as evidence, and where a foreclosure advertisement has expired, the applicant fails to discharge the burden of proving imminent threat of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Irreparable Harm — Mortgaged Property
Irreparable injury means substantial or material injury that cannot be adequately atoned for by way of damages. Once a borrower mortgages property, they cannot claim to suffer substantial loss from execution on that property. Emotional attachment to mortgaged property does not constitute irreparable harm warranting stay of execution.
Banking & Finance — Mortgage Enforcement — Stay of Execution — Monetary Claims
Where execution is based on a claim for payment of money, a stay should not be granted except for interim stay in limited circumstances or where the judgment creditor is impecunious or unlikely to repay the judgment sum if they lose the appeal or review. The applicant must demonstrate that allowing execution would irreparably harm them and that the respondent cannot repay if the review succeeds.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (12)

  • Iddi Halfani v Hamisa Binti Athuman [1962] EA 761
  • Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Co (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2019)
  • JUNACO and Others v DFCU (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 145 of 2023)
  • Combines Services v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 200 of 2009)
  • Haruna Ssentogo v IM Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 009 of 2023)
  • Kabarema Adonia v Natukunda Marion (Miscellaneous Application No. 0264 of 2021)
  • Attorney General v Walugembe Daniel (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 390 of 2018)
  • Omar Awadh Omar and 10 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Court Civil Application No. 02 of 2015)
  • Proline Soccer Academy v Commissioner Land Registration (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 494 of 2018)
  • UMEME Limited v Jane Nankabirwa (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 154 of 2021)
  • Formula Feeds Limited and Others v KCB Bank (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • MATEX COMMERCIAL SUPPLIRES vs euro Bank C 82 Haruna Ssentogo IM BanK MA 009-2023

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sarick Construction Ltd and Others v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2982 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 9 (13 January 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.