Wakilii

Volcano Coffee Limited and Another v Infinite Aromas Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2399 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 231 · 2026 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 default judgment
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending determination of application to set aside default judgment

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 default judgment. The Court held that where a judgment debtor has filed a suit to set aside a default judgment and faces imminent execution, a stay should be granted under Order 22 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Court further held that a party with duly facilitated and instructed lawyers cannot be held liable for counsel's negligence in failing to appear, and such omission ought not to be visited upon the litigant.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending determination of application to set aside default judgment

Facts

The respondent filed a summary suit (Civil Suit No. 0014 of 2025) against the applicants. The applicants filed an application for unconditional leave to appear and defend (M.A. No. 0378 of 2025), which was dismissed, and default judgment was entered against them. The respondent commenced execution proceedings (EMA No. 0354 of 2025). The 2nd applicant learned of the execution when served with an advocate's bill of costs and a notice to show cause why execution by arrest and detention should not proceed. The applicants then filed M.A. No. 2345 of 2025 to set aside the dismissal and default judgment. The applicants contended that their former lawyer, Francis Harimwomugasho, whom they had duly instructed and facilitated, failed to attend court for M.A. No. 0378 of 2025, leading to the dismissal. They filed the present application (M.A. No. 2399 of 2025) seeking a stay of execution pending determination of M.A. No. 2345 of 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd applicant has sufficient ground for the grant of the order of stay of execution.

Orders

  • The execution in civil suit No. 0014 of 2025 by way of arrest and detention of the applicant is stayed pending hearing of Miscellaneous Application No. 2345 of 2025.
  • Costs shall abide the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Order 22 Rule 26 CPR — Requirements
For an order of stay of execution under Order 22 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, there must be simultaneously two proceedings in one or more courts between the same parties: one proceeding at the execution stage filed by the decree holder against the judgment debtors, and another suit pending at the instance of the judgment debtors against the decree holder, both concerning the same subject matter.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat — Notice to Show Cause
Serving a party with a bill of costs and a notice to show cause why execution should not proceed by way of arrest constitutes an imminent threat of execution against which a prudent party has a right to seek remedy from court.
Civil Procedure — Counsel's Negligence — Liability of Client
A party with duly facilitated and instructed lawyers cannot be held liable for their counsel's negligence. The omission, mistake or inadvertence of counsel ought not to be visited on the litigant.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Court's Discretion
Under Order 22 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has discretion to grant a stay of execution without requiring the applicant to furnish security for due performance or costs, depending on the circumstances of the matter.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • IT Office Uganda Limited v Tropical Bank (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0617 of 2024)
  • Burnett v Francis Industries PLC [1987] 2 All ER 323
  • Godfrey Magezi and Others v Sudhir Ruparelia (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Volcano Coffee Limited and Another v Infinite Aromas Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2399 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 231 (6 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.