Wakilii

The Board of Governors Directors Caltec Academy Makerere and Another v Luwedde Kasule (Miscellaneous Application No. 2190 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 99 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending determination of application to set aside ex parte judgment and decree
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending determination of application to set aside ex parte judgment, conditional on deposit of security

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 execution pending determination of an application to set aside ex parte proceedings. The court found that the applicants satisfied the requirements for stay: a notice of appeal had been filed, the application to set aside had a likelihood of success, there was no unreasonable delay, substantial loss would result from execution, and there was imminent threat of execution through garnishee proceedings. The court ordered the applicants to deposit UGX 60,000,000 as security for due performance of the decree within thirty days.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending determination of application to set aside ex parte judgment, conditional on deposit of security

Facts

The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 970 of 2020 against the applicants for trespass on land comprised in Block 3 Plot 859 at Makerere. In Misc. Application No. 2398 of 2021, judgment on admission was entered against the applicants for trespass. A subsequent Misc. Application No. 1861 of 2022 was filed to review orders and provide for mesne profits, general damages and interest. The court awarded the respondents UGX 50,000,000 in general damages, UGX 150,000,000 as mesne profits, and 15% interest per annum. The applicants claimed they did not receive service of Misc. Application No. 1861 of 2022 as their former lawyers failed to inform them. The respondents filed Misc. Application No. 176 of 2024 for garnishee proceedings to attach the applicants' bank account. The applicants filed Misc. Application No. 688 of 2024 to set aside the ex parte proceedings and then brought this application for stay of execution pending determination of that application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to an order of stay of execution pending determination of the application for setting aside the ex parte order, ex parte judgement, decree and order in the said suit?

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution granted.
  • Applicants to deposit UGX 60,000,000 to court as security for due performance of the decree and orders within thirty days of this ruling.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant
For a stay of execution to issue, the applicant must prove: (i) there is a notice of appeal lodged with court; (ii) the appeal is not frivolous and has a likelihood of success; (iii) the application for stay has been made without unreasonable delay; (iv) substantial loss may result to the applicant unless stay is granted; (v) there is serious or imminent threat of execution and if the application is not granted, the appeal would be rendered nugatory; (vi) refusal to grant stay would inflict more hardship than it would avoid; and (vii) the applicant has given security for due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him.
Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal as Sufficient Basis
A notice of appeal is a sufficient expression of an intention to file an appeal and such action is sufficient to found the basis for grant of orders of stay in appropriate cases.
Stay of Execution — Nugatory Appeal
The term 'nugatory' means not only worthless, futile or invalid, but also trifling. Whether an appeal will be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted depends on whether what is sought to be stayed, if allowed to happen, will be reversible, or if not reversible, whether damages will reasonably compensate the party aggrieved, or whether it is in the public interest to grant a stay. This includes all cases where it is necessary to preserve the status quo pending appeal, in aid of and to preserve the appellate power, so that the rights involved in the appeal may not be lost or reduced by reason of an intervening execution of the judgment.
Stay of Execution — Garnishee Proceedings as Imminent Threat
Garnishee proceedings pose a real and imminent threat of execution as these proceedings are self-executing. The threat of attaching or garnishing a bank account is likely to lead to permanent loss of earnings in the account and constitutes substantial loss justifying a stay of execution.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
No order for stay of execution shall be made unless the court is satisfied that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him or her. Security for due performance of a decree is required to protect the respondent from the risk that the applicant may not be able to satisfy the decree.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (17)

  • Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA 263
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekibubo and 4 Others v The Attorney General and 3 Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Ndiege (Court of Appeal Misc. Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Eluju Martin v Itobu Margret (High Court Misc. Application No. 160 of 2022)
  • Shah v Attorney General (1971) EA 50
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v The East African Law Society and Another (EACA Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Formular Feeds Ltd and 3 Others v KCB Bank Ltd (Misc. Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority v Kayimba (CACA No. 62 of 2014)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Misc. Application No. 379 of 2003)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co. SA [1995-1999] EA 312
  • Hoima Municipal Council v Karamagi (Misc. Application No. 0032 of 2021)
  • Pan African Insurance Co. (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (HCMA No. 86 of 2006)
  • National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Misc. Application No. 7 of 1998)
  • P. K Sengendo v Busulwa Lawrence and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 207 of 2014)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lussejere (CACA No. 29 of 2003)
  • Imperial Royale Hotel Ltd and 2 Others v Ochan Daniel (Misc. Application No. 11 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The_Board_of_Governors_Directors_Caltec_Academy_Makerere_and_Another_v_Luwedde_Kasule_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2190_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_99_(23_June_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.