Wakilii

Sebugwano Adam and Another v Nduga Andrew (Miscellaneous Application No. 2520 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 425 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of proceedings pending determination of appeal and application for extension of time in the Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of proceedings granted pending determination of appeal and related application in the Court of Appeal

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 High Court granted a stay of proceedings in the underlying civil suit pending determination of an appeal and an application for extension of time in the Court of Appeal. The court held that sufficient cause was established where the applicants had initiated an appellate process raising arguable issues, and proceeding with the main suit would risk rendering the interlocutory appeal nugatory. The balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo despite significant delay in filing the notice of appeal.

Outcome

Stay of proceedings granted pending determination of appeal and related application in the Court of Appeal

Facts

The applicants filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1372 of 2022 arising from Civil Suit No. 0594 of 2022, which was dismissed on 13 December 2022. Approximately three years later, on 27 November 2025, they filed a Notice of Appeal challenging that ruling. They subsequently filed Civil Appeal No. 0884 of 2025 and Civil Application No. 0674 of 2025 seeking validation of the Notice of Appeal and extension of time. A record of appeal was filed in the Court of Appeal on 1 December 2025. The main suit was fixed for hearing on 15 January 2026. The applicants sought a stay of proceedings in the main suit pending determination of the appeal and the application for extension of time, arguing that proceeding with the hearing would render the appeal nugatory. The respondent opposed the application, contending that the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time without leave, rendering the appeal incompetent, and that the application was frivolous and an abuse of process.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient cause to warrant a stay of proceedings pending determination of an appeal.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • A stay of proceedings in Civil Suit No. 0594 of 2022 is granted pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 0884 of 2025 and Civil Application No. 0674 of 2025.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings — Competence of Appeal — Effect of Pending Application for Extension of Time
Where an applicant has initiated an appellate process by filing a notice of appeal out of time and a pending application for extension of time to validate that notice, the existence of the appellate process cannot be ignored for purposes of determining an application for stay of proceedings, even though the competence of the appeal remains contested and undetermined by the appellate court.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings — Preliminary Objections — Jurisdiction to Determine Competence of Appeal
A trial court hearing an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal should not conclusively determine the validity of a notice of appeal or the competence of the appeal where those matters are pending before the appellate court, as doing so would usurp appellate jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings — Grounds for Grant — Interlocutory Appeals
An appeal against an interlocutory decision is intended to address issues affecting the course of proceedings. If those proceedings are concluded before the interlocutory appeal is determined, proceeding with the main suit may defeat the purpose of the interlocutory appeal and render it nugatory.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings — Delay — Effect on Discretion
While significant delay between an impugned ruling and the filing of a notice of appeal is relevant to the exercise of discretion in a stay application, delay alone is not sufficient to defeat the application where the issue of delay is before the appellate court and the applicant acted promptly once the hearing date of the main suit became imminent.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Proceedings — Balance of Convenience
In determining an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal, the balance of convenience favours granting the stay where refusal risks defeating the appeal, whereas granting the stay causes only delay to the respondent.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (11)

  • Johnson Mugisha and 3 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority and 2 Others (HCT-00-CV-0481-2008)
  • Attorney General v Shah (No. 4) [1975] EA 50
  • Dr Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Kissule v Greenland Bank (in liquidation) [2011] UGSC 13
  • African Renaissance Corporation Ltd v JDP Construction Ltd (HCCS No. 323 of 2003)
  • Luggya Andrew v Kikonyogo Richard and Another (HCCA No. 248 of 2021)
  • Robert Kavuma v M/S Hotel International (SCCA No. 8 of 1990)
  • Commodity Export International and Another v MKM Trading Company Ltd and Another (CACA No. 96 of 2005)
  • Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui Vs Tonny Ketter and 5 Ors (2013) eKIR
  • Beeline Travel Care (U) Ltd and Another v Finance Trust Bank (CACA No. 67 of 2023)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Coget Cotton Co SA [1995-1998] EA 312
  • Muhorro Town Council v Rutalihamu Jacob (Miscellaneous Application No. 0016 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sebugwano_Adam_and_Another_v_Nduga_Andrew_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2520_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_425_(14_April_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.