Wakilii

Suzan Nabirye and Another v Zedek Microfinance Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 100 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending review of judgment on admission and interest award
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditional upon payment of admitted sum and deposit of security for disputed interest

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

Court granted stay of execution of a money decree pending review, conditional upon the applicants paying the uncontested admitted sum of UGX 137,000,000 and depositing 30% of the disputed accrued interest as security. The court found that while payment of a money decree does not ordinarily constitute substantial loss, there was an imminent threat of execution and the delay in filing was not unreasonable. The court balanced the decree holder's right to enjoy fruits of litigation against the applicants' right to seek review.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditional upon payment of admitted sum and deposit of security for disputed interest

Facts

The respondent microfinance institution obtained judgment on admission against the applicants for UGX 137,000,000 in Civil Suit No. 691/2023. The matter proceeded ex parte for formal proof of interest, and the court awarded accrued interest of UGX 96,360,000 at a rate of 6.5% per month on the principal sum. The applicants filed a review application challenging the interest rate as unconscionable, arguing it amounted to 78% per annum. When the respondent moved to execute the decree and issued a notice to show cause why execution should not issue, the applicants applied for stay of execution pending determination of their review application. The applicants had not paid any part of the admitted sum despite judgment being entered over a year prior.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants raise sufficient grounds for an order of stay of execution to be granted in Civil Suit No. 0691 of 2023 pending the hearing of the review application.
  2. Whether the applicants should deposit security for the due performance of the decree.
  3. Whether there are any remedies available to the parties.

Orders

  • A stay of execution of the decree vide Civil Suit No. 0691/2023 pending disposal of the application for review vide Miscellaneous Application No. 1911/2024.
  • As a pre-condition for the stay of execution, the applicants shall satisfy the uncontested UGX 137,000,000 that was granted to the respondent on judgment on admission.
  • The applicants shall deposit before this court 30% of the disputed accrued interest on the principal sum as security for due performance of the decree, or a bank guarantee of the same sum, within 30 days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
  • Costs will abide the outcome of the review.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Grounds for Grant — Conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3)
The conditions for granting stay of execution under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules are not mandatory and need not all be satisfied before a stay is granted. The court has discretion to grant stay where some but not all conditions are met, and each application should be handled on its merits according to the circumstances of the particular case.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Payment of Money Decree
Payment of a money decree does not ordinarily constitute substantial loss or irreparable injury to a judgment debtor. Substantial loss refers to loss of real worth or value as distinguished from loss that is merely nominal, and cannot be quantified by any particular mathematical formula. Where an applicant would only be satisfying a money decree, substantial loss has not been proved.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Court's Discretion
The court has discretion to determine a just and fair amount of security for due performance of a decree when granting stay of execution. The determination should be made in consonance with the probability of success of the review or appeal, and should not be done with a view to frustrating the review. The court must balance the decree holder's right to enjoy fruits of litigation against the applicant's right to access courts to seek remedies.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution Pending Review — Application of Section 98 Civil Procedure Act
Stay of execution pending review of a decision is not expressly provided for under the Civil Procedure Rules. The court may invoke section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, which gives the High Court powers to make decisions that ensure justice is attained, and apply Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Rules by analogy to applications for stay pending review.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (10)

  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 331
  • Kampala International University v Housing Finance Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0341 of 2013)
  • Kabarema Adonia v Natukunda Marion (Miscellaneous Application No. 0264 of 2021)
  • Behange Jennifer v School Outfitters (U) Ltd (2000) 1 EA 20
  • Kampala International University v Housing Finance Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0559 of 2025)
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lussejere (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2003)
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Sewankambo Dickson v Zziwa Abby (Miscellaneous Application No. 178 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Suzan Nabirye and Another v Zedek Microfinance Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 100 (23 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.