Wakilii

Strogen Limited and Others v Vehicle and Equipment Leasing Ltd (Misc. Application No. 353 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 128 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending determination of application to set aside ex parte judgment
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending determination of application to set aside decree

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 the application for stay of execution of a decree pending determination of an application to set aside the ex parte judgment. The court held that all conditions for stay were satisfied: a pending application existed, there was imminent threat of execution by arrest and detention, substantial loss would result to the applicants, and the application was filed without unreasonable delay after service of the notice to show cause.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending determination of application to set aside decree

Facts

The respondent obtained an ex parte judgment in Civil Suit No. 194 of 2017 for USD 1,283,765.93 and UGX 30,000,000 after the applicants' previous counsel informed the court he could not locate them. The suit proceeded ex parte on 20 September 2022 and judgment was delivered on 19 April 2024. The respondent commenced execution proceedings vide EMA No. 279 of 2024 seeking arrest and detention of the 3rd applicant. On 23 January 2025, the applicants were served with a notice to show cause why execution should not issue. The applicants filed Misc. Application No. 348 of 2025 on 24 February 2025 to set aside the ex parte decree, and simultaneously filed this application for stay of execution pending determination of that application.

Issues

  1. Whether an order of stay of execution in Civil Suit No. 194 of 2017 should be granted?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The execution of the decree vide High Court Civil Suit No. 194 of 2017 is hereby stayed pending the determination of Miscellaneous Application No. 348 of 2025.
  • Costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Order 22 rule 26 — Pending Application to Set Aside Decree
Under Order 22 rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a pending application to set aside a decree qualifies as a pending suit for purposes of staying execution, and no condition is imposed regarding the nature of the pending suit.
Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Imminent Threat of Execution
There must be established by evidence a serious and imminent threat of execution of the decree or order, and the evidence should show that if the application is not granted, the main application shall be rendered nugatory.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Test to be Applied
The main criterion for staying execution is whether the judgment debtor would suffer substantial loss if the decree was executed, notwithstanding that the decree might subsequently be set aside.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Discretion of Court
In applications for stay of execution, the interest of justice would be better served if the status quo is maintained rather than the court ordering the applicants to deposit a substantial amount of money as security for the due performance of the decree.
Affidavits — False Averments — Liberal Approach
Where an affidavit contains some falsehoods, the court may adopt a liberal approach by ignoring the false parts and considering the rest of the averments, provided the false parts do not affect the crux of the application.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (16)

  • Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Ndejje University v E-Live International Services Ltd (High Court Misc. Application No. 1999 of 2024)
  • Col. (RTD) Dr. Kizza Besigye v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni & Another (Electoral Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Peter Mulira v Mitchell Cotts Ltd (High Court Misc. Application No. 715 of 2009)
  • Imelda Nandaula v Uganda Development Bank Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1992)
  • I.T. Office (U) Ltd v Tropical Bank Limited (High Court Misc. Application No. 617 of 2024)
  • Olivia da Ritta Siqueira E Facho Vs Siqueira [1933] 15 KLR 34
  • Jadva Karsan Vs Harnam Singh Bhogal [1953] 20 EACA 74
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and 4 Others v The Attorney General and 4 Others (Supreme Court Constitutional Petition No. 04 of 2014)
  • Yakobo M.N Senkungu and Others v Cresensio Mukasa (Civil Application No. 5 of 2013)
  • Giuliano Gariggio v Claudio Casadio (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 3 of 2013)
  • Iddi Halfani Vs Hamisa Binti Athumani [1962] EA 761
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v East African Property Holding Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2014)
  • Eriabu Kabigiza Vs Lawrence Sserwanja [1975] HCB 99
  • Joel Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Supreme Court Misc. Application No. 11 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Strogen Limited and Others v Vehicle and Equipment Leasing Ltd (Misc. Application No. 353 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 128 (15 May 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.