Wakilii

Uganda Railways Corporation v Ponziano Nyeko [2025] UGHC 1586

High Court · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from a review ruling
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

Application for stay of execution dismissed. The court held that while the applicant filed a notice of appeal without unreasonable delay and there was an imminent threat of execution, the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss beyond ordinary monetary loss, did not deposit security for costs, and did not provide sufficient material to assess the appeal's likelihood of success. Execution of a money decree does not constitute substantial loss where the respondent is not shown to be impecunious and restitution remedies remain available.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the Respondent

Facts

The Respondent obtained judgment in Civil Suit No. 158 of 2014 on 31 August 2022 against the Applicant for breach of contract, with special damages of UGX 504,906,880. The Applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 2560 of 2023 seeking review of the judgment, which was dismissed on 6 August 2024. The Applicant filed a notice of appeal on 12 August 2024 and then filed the present application seeking stay of execution pending determination of the intended appeal. The Respondent had filed EMA No. 0384 of 2024 for execution and an application for garnishee proceedings. The Applicant argued that the appeal raised serious issues and that execution would cause substantial and irreparable loss. The Respondent contended that leave to appeal had not been granted, that there was no imminent threat of execution, and that the Applicant had not demonstrated substantial loss.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a proper case for the grant of a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant
An applicant seeking a stay of execution pending appeal must demonstrate: (a) that a notice of appeal has been lodged; (b) that substantial loss may result unless the stay is granted; (c) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (d) that security has been given for due performance of the decree; (e) that there is a serious and imminent threat of execution; and (f) that refusal to grant the stay would inflict greater hardship than it would avoid.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution
An order of stay will issue only if there is actual or presently threatened execution. There must be unequivocal evidence showing that unconditional steps conveying a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution have been taken. Steps demonstrating serious intent include extracting the decree, presenting and having a bill of costs taxed, applying for issuance of a warrant of execution, and issuing a notice to show cause why execution should not issue. The fact that a notice to show cause has been adjourned does not negate its existence as evidence of imminent threat.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Execution of a money decree is ordinarily not stayed since satisfaction of a money decree does not amount to substantial loss or irreparable injury to the applicant where the respondent is not impecunious, as the remedy of restitution is available to the applicant in the event the appeal is allowed. Substantial loss must mean something in addition to and different from the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when he loses his case and is deprived of his property in consequence. The applicant must demonstrate that execution would have an irreversible effect, such as threatening operational capacity, ability to pay employees, or threatening the very existence of the entity.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs
Courts have been reluctant to order security for due performance of the entire decretal amount as this practice is likely to stifle appeals. Courts have instead resorted to making orders for security for costs. The payment of security for costs is intended to operate as a shield against the filing of frivolous and vexatious appeals which may never succeed yet have an effect in escalating trial costs. Security for costs operates as an insurance cover meant to indemnify the judgment creditor in the event the appeal fails without recourse to vigorous processes of recovering such costs.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Balancing Hardship
In determining whether to grant a stay of execution, the court must balance the interest of the applicant who is seeking to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of the appeal so that the appeal is not rendered nugatory, against the interest of the respondent who is seeking to enjoy the fruits of his or her judgment. A successful litigant has a vested right to enjoy the fruits of a judgment delivered in their favour, and depriving a successful party of the ability to execute a valid decree without compelling reasons would amount to a denial of justice.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (11)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa v Itobu Margret (HCMA No. 0160 of 2022)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & others v Attorney General & others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Formula Feeds Ltd v KCB Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Baguma Paul T/A Panache Associates v Eng. Karuma Kagyina (HCMA No. 460 of 2020)
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Zaabwe & Others (HCMA No. 191 of 2006)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Coqecot Cotton Co. SA (1995-1993) 1 E.A 312
  • Bansidhav v Pribku Dayal AIR 41 1954
  • Kisaalu Joseph & 10 others v Nakintu May & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2020)
  • Shem Mpanga Mukasa & Anor v Kizza Clessy Barya (Miscellaneous Application No. 479 of 2021)
  • Wandera Michael v Baguma Samalie (Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Railways Corporation v Ponziano Nyeko 2025 UGHC 1586 (20 August 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.