Wakilii

Universal Multipurpose Enterprises v Xue Wen Jun (Miscellaneous Application No. 1313 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 184 · 2025 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 the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application dismissed; execution of decree to proceed

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 of a decree pending appeal. Although the applicant satisfied some procedural requirements including filing a notice of appeal without unreasonable delay, the court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss, as the respondent had suffered greater hardship from being denied possession of a condominium unit she paid for in 2020. The court balanced the interests of both parties and held that in the interest of justice, execution should proceed despite the pending appeal.

Outcome

Application dismissed; execution of decree to proceed

Facts

The applicant and respondent entered into an agreement for the sale of a condominium unit at an agreed price of UGX 405,000,000. The respondent paid UGX 363,235,000, leaving a balance of UGX 41,765,000 pending handover of the unit. The applicant was to hand over vacant possession on 20 January 2020 but failed to do so, constituting breach of the purchase agreement. The High Court found the applicant liable and ordered it to refund UGX 363,235,000 plus general damages of UGX 20,000,000 with interest. The respondent commenced execution proceedings. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 18 March 2025 and subsequently brought this application for stay of execution on 13 June 2025, after learning that a decree nisi had been issued and its bank accounts frozen. The respondent opposed the application, stating she and her family had been renting expensively at USD 7,000 per month since 2020 due to the applicant's breach.

Issues

  1. Whether this application raises sufficient grounds for an order of stay of execution?
  2. Whether security for costs should be paid by the applicants?
  3. Whether the parties have remedies available to them?

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Discretion of Court — Order 22 Rule 26 Civil Procedure Rules
Under Order 22 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has discretion to grant or deny a stay of execution where a suit is pending against the holder of a decree, on such terms as to security or otherwise as it thinks fit.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Order 43 Rule 4(3) Civil Procedure Rules
Before granting a stay of execution, the court must be satisfied that: (1) substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made; (2) the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (3) security has been given for due performance of the decree; (4) there is serious or imminent threat of execution and the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted; (5) the appeal is not frivolous and has a likelihood of success; and (6) refusal to grant the stay would inflict more hardship than it would avoid.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Service of Notice of Appeal — Electronic Service via ECCMIS
Under Rule 16 of the Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service and Virtual Proceedings) Rules, 2025, documents are served electronically through a registered email address or other approved electronic communication service. Where a respondent is linked to ECCMIS, service is effected when the Registrar admits and endorses the notice of appeal on ECCMIS.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Balancing Hardship Between Parties
In determining whether substantial loss would result to an applicant for stay of execution, the court must balance the interests of the successful litigant who wishes to execute the decree against the interests of the unsuccessful litigant who wishes to pursue an appeal. Where the judgment creditor has suffered greater hardship from the judgment debtor's breach over an extended period, the court may refuse a stay of execution in the interest of justice notwithstanding satisfaction of some procedural requirements.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa v Itobu Margareet (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0160 of 2020)
  • 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)
  • Formula Feeds Limited and 3 Others v KCB Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Ejulu Martin v Itobu (Miscellaneous Application No. 160 of 2022)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 331
  • Kabarema Adonia v Natukunda Marion (Miscellaneous Application No. 0264 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Universal Multipurpose Enterprises v Xue Wen Jun (Miscellaneous Application No. 1313 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 184 (19 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.