Wakilii

Tarig Muhammad v Global Engineering Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 922 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 42 · 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 appeal to High Court from Magistrate's Court judgment
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 High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal. The applicant failed to satisfy the three mandatory conditions under Order 43 Rule 4(3) CPR: substantial loss was not established as lawful arrest in execution does not constitute substantial loss and no evidence showed the respondent could not refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded; the application was brought with unreasonable delay of over four months after dismissal of the lower court stay application; and the applicant failed to provide concrete details of security for due performance of the decree.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent obtained judgment against the applicant in Civil Suit No. 75 of 2019 delivered on 27 February 2023. The applicant filed a notice of appeal and requested certified proceedings. The applicant's application for stay of execution before the trial Magistrate was dismissed on 12 June 2025. The respondent obtained a warrant of arrest to execute the decree. On 5 November 2025, the applicant filed this application in the High Court seeking stay of execution pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2024. The respondent opposed the application on grounds that the applicant had not been served with notice of appeal, the applicant showed dilatory conduct in prosecuting the appeal, the memorandum of appeal was filed out of time without leave, and there was unreasonable delay in bringing the High Court stay application.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has fulfilled the conditions for the grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Substantial Loss
For an applicant to establish substantial loss under Order 43 Rule 4(3)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant must prove that execution will create a state of affairs that will irreparably affect or negate the very essential core of the applicant as a successful party in the appeal. The fact that the process of execution has been put in motion or is likely to be put in motion does not by itself amount to substantial loss, as execution is a lawful process.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Reputational Damage from Lawful Arrest
The fact that an applicant's reputation will be damaged if arrested in lawful execution of a decree does not amount to substantial loss for purposes of granting stay of execution under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Burden of Proof — Inability to Refund
An applicant for stay of execution bears the burden to prove by real and cogent evidence that the respondent is not able to refund the decretal sum should the appeal succeed. Failure to adduce such evidence means the applicant has not proved that substantial loss will result if an order of stay is not granted.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay
What constitutes unreasonable delay in filing an application for stay of execution is dependent on the surrounding circumstances of each case. A delay of over four months between dismissal of a stay application in the lower court and filing of a fresh stay application in the High Court may constitute unreasonable delay under Order 43 Rule 4(3)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance of Decree
Under Order 43 Rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules, an applicant for stay of execution must provide concrete details of what security is available and what the applicant is willing to deposit as security for due performance of the decree. A mere statement of willingness to furnish security without providing details is insufficient to satisfy this condition. The purpose of security is to guarantee due performance of the decree, not to punish the judgment debtor, and the issue of security is discretionary upon the court.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Cumulative Conditions
An applicant in an application for stay of execution pending appeal is obliged to satisfy all three conditions set out in Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules cumulatively: that substantial loss may result unless the order is made, that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given for due performance of the decree. An appeal does not operate as a stay of execution as a matter of course.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (8)

  • Karuhanga Geoffrey v Tulihamu Budongo SACCO (Miscellaneous Application No. 108 of 2022)
  • Crane Bank Ltd v Sudhir Ruparelia & Uganda Registration Service Bureau (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2020)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & Anor v International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Idiringi Patrick Viera v Lawrence B. Tumusiime (Civil Application No. 177 of 2023)
  • Kyambogo University v Professor Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Wilson v Church (No 2) 12 Ch D (1879) 454
  • Kampala Capital City Authority v Murangira Joseph (Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2016)
  • Igga Jawudu v Finance Trust Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 206 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tarig Muhammad v Global Engineering Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 922 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 42 (24 February 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.