Wakilii

WKs Hardware Limited and Another v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited [2026] UGHC 766

High Court · 2026 Application Granted (Conditional Stay) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of a High Court decree pending determination of an appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Conditional stay of execution granted pending determination of the appeal, subject to deposit of UGX 175,037,741 as security within 30 days

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

A conditional stay of execution was granted. The Court held that although the ordinary presumption is that a solvent respondent bank can repay any decretal sum if the appeal succeeds, so that a monetary decree alone does not render an appeal nugatory, that presumption does not answer the position where execution proceeds by a warrant of arrest against an individual guarantor. The personal liberty consequences of arrest, and the potential irreversible disruption of a running hardware business, constituted irreparable and substantial loss engaging both Order 43 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act. Stay granted conditional upon depositing 50% of the principal decretal sum within thirty days, failing which the stay lapses automatically.

Outcome

Conditional stay of execution granted pending determination of the appeal, subject to deposit of UGX 175,037,741 as security within 30 days

Facts

Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited advanced a revolving credit facility of UGX 260,000,000 to W.K's Hardware Limited, with the second applicant, Wamukwe Kadiri, executing a personal guarantee. The applicants defaulted, and the bank sued by summary procedure under Order 36 Rule 2 in High Court Civil Suit No. 004 of 2022. The applicants applied for leave to appear and defend but withdrew that application with costs on 19 October 2022, whereupon judgment was entered by the Assistant Registrar on 27 October 2022 for UGX 350,075,481 with interest and costs. An application to set aside the judgment and decree was dismissed. The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal. On 17 November 2023 they were served with a Warrant of Arrest in Execution directed against both of them. They then applied for a stay of execution, alleging an arguable appeal, imminent execution, irreparable loss and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory. The bank opposed the application, contending that it was solvent and able to make restitution, that the applicants had consented by conduct to judgment, and that any stay should be conditional upon adequate security given accruing contractual interest.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants satisfied the requirements for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory where the respondent is a solvent licensed commercial bank capable of making restitution.
  3. Whether a warrant of arrest in execution against an individual guarantor and threatened attachment of a running business establish substantial or irreparable loss.
  4. What amount of security for due performance of the decree should be imposed as a condition of the stay.

Orders

  • Execution of the decree and all processes of execution arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 004 of 2022, including the Warrant of Arrest in Execution issued against the Applicants, is stayed pending the hearing and final determination of the appeal before the Court of Appeal.
  • The stay is conditional upon the Applicants depositing in Court, or furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar, the sum of UGX 175,037,741 within thirty (30) days of the date of the Ruling.
  • In the event the Applicants fail to deposit the security within the prescribed period, the stay shall lapse automatically without further order and the Respondent shall be at liberty to proceed with execution forthwith.
  • There shall be no order as to costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — No Automatic Stay on Filing of Appeal
The mere filing of an appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of execution; the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating valid grounds for a stay in each case, and not every decree appealed against must be stayed pending appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success — Interlocutory Threshold
At the interlocutory stage the court does not examine the merits of the appeal in detail; it is sufficient that the appeal raises serious questions of law or fact with a realistic prospect of success, and bare or speculative assertions of error will not suffice.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Nugatory Appeal — Presumption of Solvency of a Licensed Bank
Where the respondent is a licensed commercial bank regulated under the Financial Institutions Act and there is no evidence of insolvency, the presumption is that it can make restitution if the appeal succeeds, so a purely monetary decree does not by itself render an appeal nugatory.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Warrant of Arrest in Execution — Personal Liberty as Irreparable Loss
Where execution proceeds by way of a warrant of arrest against an individual judgment debtor or guarantor, the personal liberty, reputational and commercial consequences of arrest cannot be measured by a fixed pecuniary standard and constitute irreparable loss justifying the court's protective jurisdiction, notwithstanding the respondent's ability to repay money.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Evidentiary Foundation Required
Substantial loss means loss over and above the ordinary consequence of execution suffered by every unsuccessful judgment debtor, and must be established by a concrete evidentiary foundation identifying the persons and assets at risk rather than by a recitation of the words of the rule.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Proportionality of Conditions
Security for due performance of the decree must be fixed at a level that meaningfully protects the decree holder while not being so onerous as to amount to a practical denial of the right of appeal, and a stay may be made to lapse automatically if the security is not furnished within the time prescribed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminence of Execution and Absence of Delay
A stay will issue only where execution is actual or presently threatened by concrete steps such as extraction of the decree or issue of a warrant against the judgment debtor personally, and the application must be filed promptly once that threat materialises.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (15)

  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Akankwasa Damian v Uganda (Constitutional Application Nos. 7 and 9 of 2011)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Bitature [2005] HCB 52
  • Wilson v Church (No. 2) (1879) 12 Ch D 454
  • Yosamu Sseruwagi v Hajji Kato (Civil Application No. 2 of 1997)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Lubega Moses v Napendana Sylvia (Civil Application No. 8/22 of 2024)
  • Commissioner URA v Kirenga Fred (Miscellaneous Application No. 91 of 2014)
  • Banshididar vs Pribku Dayal, Air 41 of 1954
  • Asaba George v Kasangaki Simon (Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2020)
  • Andrew Kisawuzi v Dan Oundo Malingu (Miscellaneous Application No. 467 of 2018)
  • China Henan International Cooperation Group Company Ltd v Justus Kyabahwa (Miscellaneous Application No. 487 of 2021)
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lussejere (Civil Application No. 29 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

WKs Hardware Limited and Another v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited [2026] UGHC 766 (23 June 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.