Wakilii

Vivo Energy Uganda Limited v D&D Law Publishing House Limited (Miscellaneous Application 275 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 130 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of judgment pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; respondent may proceed with execution of the judgment in HCCS 476 of 2019

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 timely appeal with arguable grounds, the mandatory requirements for stay of execution were not satisfied. The applicant failed to prove substantial loss, providing no evidence that execution of a monetary decree for a single contamination incident would irreparably damage its business reputation. The applicant also failed to demonstrate imminent threat of execution, presenting no evidence of actual enforcement steps. Balancing competing interests, the respondent's right to enjoy the fruits of judgment after six years of litigation outweighed the applicant's speculative claims of reputational harm.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; respondent may proceed with execution of the judgment in HCCS 476 of 2019

Facts

The applicant, Vivo Energy Uganda Limited, was the defendant in HCCS 476 of 2019, a suit concerning alleged damage to the respondent's vehicle caused by contaminated fuel consumed at the applicant's Shell service station at Mulago on 9 November 2017. On 13 March 2025, judgment was delivered in favour of the respondent, awarding UGX 70,060,672. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the applicant filed a memorandum of appeal to the Court of Appeal on 10 April 2025 (Civil Appeal 204 of 2025) and on 16 April 2025 filed this application for stay of execution pending the appeal. The applicant argued that execution would damage its business reputation and goodwill, that the trial judge failed to properly evaluate evidence on causation and damages, and that the appeal had a high chance of success. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicant failed to prove substantial loss or imminent threat of execution, and that after six years of litigation the respondent was entitled to the fruits of its judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment in HCCS 476 of 2019 pending appeal.
  2. Who bears the costs of this application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Principles and Requirements
An applicant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy several mandatory requirements: (1) that a notice of appeal has been lodged; (2) that substantial loss may result unless stay is granted; (3) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (4) that security has been given for due performance of the decree; (5) that there is serious or imminent threat of execution and if not granted the appeal would be rendered nugatory; (6) that the application is not frivolous and has a likelihood of success; and (7) that refusal to grant stay would inflict more hardship than it would avoid.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Burden of Proof
The words 'substantial loss' in the context of stay of execution mean something in addition to and different from the ordinary loss which every judgment debtor necessarily suffers when deprived of property in consequence of losing a case. The applicant must adduce empirical or documentary evidence to support contentions of substantial loss; mere assertions without supporting evidence are insufficient. The court will not consider assertions of substantial loss at face value but must be guided by adequate and proper evidence.
Stay of Execution — Reputational Harm — Proof Required
Where an applicant claims that execution will damage its business reputation and goodwill, it must adduce cogent evidence such as market surveys, customer complaints, or business records demonstrating that execution would actually damage goodwill and that such damage would be irreparable. A judgment finding that fuel at one service station on a particular date was contaminated does not, without more, constitute a general finding on the overall quality of the applicant's products, and claimed reputational harm from such a specific finding remains speculative without supporting evidence.
Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat — What Constitutes
To demonstrate serious or imminent threat of execution, an applicant must adduce evidence of actual steps taken by the decree holder to execute the judgment, such as extracting the decree, presenting and having a bill of costs taxed, applying for issuance of a warrant of execution, or issuing a notice to show cause why execution should not issue. Mere extraction of a decree and a demand letter for payment do not, without more, constitute imminent threat requiring court intervention to stay execution.
Stay of Execution — Balancing Competing Hardships
In determining whether to grant a stay of execution, the court must balance the competing hardships: the potential harm to the appellant if execution proceeds against the respondent's prima facie entitlement to enjoy the fruits of judgment. Where the decretal sum is not so colossal as to cripple a well-established company with substantial operations, and any monetary loss can be compensated by restitution with interest if the appeal succeeds, the balance tilts in favour of allowing the successful party to enjoy the fruits of judgment rather than imposing further delay based on speculative claims of irreparable harm.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (16)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v The Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co. SA (1995-1998) 1 EA 312
  • Bansidhav vs Pribku Dayal AIR 41 1954
  • Formula Feeds Limited & 3 Others v KCB Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Dison Okumu & 2 Others v Uganda Electricity Transmission Co. Limited
  • Nesco Services Limited v CM Construction (EA) Limited [2019] eKLR
  • Samvir Trustee Limited v Guardian Bank Limited Nairobi (Milimani) HCCC 795 of 1997
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v East Africa Property Holding Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2014)
  • Osman Kassam Ramathan v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2019)
  • Lucy Mary Orech v Kabogoza Mutwalib (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 200 of 2020)
  • Wasswa Matovu v Makerere University and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 11 of 2021)
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Amuanaum Sam Vs Opolot David No. 03 of 2014
  • Cooper v. Greeley, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 347

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Vivo Energy Uganda Limited v D&D Law Publishing House Limited (Miscellaneous Application 275 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 130 (23 March 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.