Wakilii

Turinawe Milton v Nahumuza Isaac (Miscellaneous Application 786 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 205 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim stay of execution pending hearing of main application for stay of execution, arising from default judgment in civil suit for recovery of debt
Decision
Application for interim 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 court dismissed the application for interim stay of execution on the ground that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, particularly the provision of security for due performance of the decree. The court further held that the applicant's confession of participating in a fraudulent scheme to file a sham case rendered him unable to approach equity with clean hands, thereby disentitling him to the relief sought.

Outcome

Application for interim stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent advanced two friendly loans to the applicant totaling UGX 137,000,000: UGX 100,000,000 on 27 October 2023 for importing business stock, and UGX 37,000,000 on 22 May 2024 for payment of taxes. The applicant failed to repay within the agreed timeframes. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 489 of 2024. The applicant was served with summons but failed to file a written statement of defence. On 12 December 2024, the respondent obtained judgment upon a liquidated demand under Order 9 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the full sum claimed. The respondent extracted the decree, taxed costs, and applied for execution. The applicant then filed Review Application No. 784 of 2025, Miscellaneous Application No. 785 of 2025 for stay of execution, and the present application for interim stay of execution pending hearing of the main stay application. In his affidavit in rejoinder, the applicant alleged that he and the respondent had agreed to file a sham suit so the respondent could use the decree as an excuse to his creditors.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has good grounds for an interim stay of execution to be granted.
  2. Whether the applicant satisfied the grounds for grant of an interim stay of execution under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. Whether the applicant's confession of participating in a fraudulent scheme to file a sham case disentitles him to equitable relief.

Orders

  • The application for interim stay of execution is dismissed.
  • These orders apply equally to Miscellaneous Application No. 785 of 2025.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Interim Stay — Requirements under Order 43 Rule 4(3) CPR
An application for interim stay of execution under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules must satisfy mandatory requirements including: a filed notice of appeal or competent application for review, demonstration that substantial loss may result if the stay is not granted, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Mandatory Requirement
The requirement under Order 43 Rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules that security be given for due performance of the decree is couched in mandatory terms and must be strictly complied with before an order for stay of execution can be made.
Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Order 9 Rule 6 CPR — Form of Judgment
A judgment need not take a particular form. Where a judge minutes her decision on a letter requesting judgment in default under Order 9 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the Registrar signs a decree pursuant to that direction, the minute constitutes a valid judgment capable of execution.
Civil Procedure — Equity — Clean Hands Doctrine — Confession of Fraudulent Scheme
A party who confesses to participating in a fraudulent scheme to file a sham case in court has not come to equity with clean hands and is not entitled to equitable relief, including an order for stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Prospects of Success — Frivolous Grounds
Where the grounds advanced in support of an application for review or appeal are procedural and diversionary, and do not address the substantive merits of the underlying claim, the court may find that the application does not have realistic prospects of success and refuse to grant a stay of execution.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2008)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Karangwa Joseph v Kalanju Willy (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2016)
  • Julius Kamywa and Others v Haji Ahmed Lugoloobi Gitta (Miscellaneous Application No. 577 of 2024)
  • Heywood Group Ltd and Another v Kaffika Animal Feeds Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 972 of 2025)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Osman Kassim Ramthan v Century Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Turinawe Milton v Nahumuza Isaac (Miscellaneous Application 786 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 205 (21 November 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.