Wakilii

Summit Projekt Ltd v Ndiyo Holdings Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 166 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 213 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of a money decree pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted on condition of deposit of security for costs; stay lapses automatically if deposit not made within 45 days

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

Held that a stay of execution pending appeal may be granted where the applicant demonstrates a valid notice of appeal, imminent threat of execution, absence of unreasonable delay, and that refusal would inflict more hardship than it would avoid. The court struck out a supplementary affidavit filed after the respondent's reply as procedurally improper. The applicant failed to establish that the appeal had a likelihood of success or that substantial loss would result without the stay, but succeeded on other grounds. Stay granted on condition that the applicant deposit UGX 80,000,000 as security for costs within 45 days.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted on condition of deposit of security for costs; stay lapses automatically if deposit not made within 45 days

Facts

On 2 May 2015, the applicant subcontracted the respondent to carry out road maintenance works for UGX 995,509,000. On 10 May 2016, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding confirming UGX 350,544,760 was due to the respondent. The applicant did not pay, and the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 788 of 2019. On 13 May 2025, judgment was entered for the respondent for UGX 350,544,760 plus general damages of UGX 50,000,000 and interest at 18% per annum. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 22 May 2025. The respondent commenced execution proceedings in January 2026 and obtained a Notice to Show Cause. The applicant filed this application for stay of execution on 5 February 2026.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal should be allowed.

Orders

  • Execution of the Decree in HCT-00-CC-CS-0788-2019 vide HCT-00-CC-EMA-0582-2025 is stayed pending appeal before the Court of Appeal.
  • The applicant shall deposit UGX 80,000,000 into court as security for costs of the appeal within 45 days from the date of this ruling.
  • If the applicant defaults in making the deposit as ordered, the stay automatically lapses.
  • Costs of this Application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
  • The supplementary Affidavit of Miceherko David filed on 2nd March 2026 is struck out for being filed without leave.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Supplementary Affidavits — Filing After Reply
A supplementary affidavit filed after the respondent has filed its affidavit in reply, without leave of court, is procedurally improper and will be struck out to prevent litigation by surprise and ensure equality of parties before the law.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Reply — Late Filing — Distinction from Pleadings
An affidavit in reply, being evidence rather than a pleading in the strict sense, may be admitted despite being filed outside the court-directed timeframe where no prejudice is demonstrated and the interests of justice require consideration of the substantive issues.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
A stay of execution pending appeal requires the applicant to demonstrate: (a) a valid notice of appeal has been filed; (b) there is an imminent threat of execution; (c) the application was made without unreasonable delay; (d) refusal to grant the stay would inflict more hardship than it would avoid; and (e) the appeal is not frivolous and has a likelihood of success.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success — Evidence Required
To establish that an appeal has a likelihood of success, the applicant must place before the court material beyond a mere statement, such as a draft memorandum of appeal indicating proposed grounds or a copy of the judgment being appealed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Nugatory Appeal — Money Decrees
Satisfaction of a money decree does not ordinarily pose the danger of rendering a pending appeal nugatory where the respondent is not impecunious, as the remedy of restitution is available to the applicant in the event the appeal is allowed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Partial Deposit
The court may, in exercising its discretion to grant a stay of execution of a money decree, order the deposit of a portion of the decretal amount as security for costs rather than as security for due performance of the decree, to balance the equities between the parties and provide partial satisfaction pending appeal.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (15)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Summit Projekt Ltd v Ndiyo Holdings Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 166 of 2026) [2026] UGCommC 213 (17 April 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.