Uganda Case Law

Lubega v Nassimbwa

Lubega v Nassimbwa (Civil Application 122 of 2024) [2024] UGCA 219 (21 August 2024)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Application 122 of 2024

Judge

Gashirabake, JA

The application for stay of execution was declined because the applicant failed to demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable damage if the stay was not granted, as the decree concerns a monetary sum and not the house. The applicant did not show that the respondent is unable to compensate him should the appeal succeed, nor did he deposit or indicate willingness to deposit security for due performance. The balance of convenience favors the respondent, and the satisfaction of a money decree does not ordinarily render an appeal nugatory. The application was filed within a reasonable time, but…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Execution
• Appeal Process
• Decretal Sum
• Irreparable Injury
• Balance Of Convenience

King James Comprehensive School Limited & 2 Others v ECO Bank Uganda Limited

King James Comprehensive School Limited & 2 Others v ECO Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2755 of 2023; Miscellaneous Application 2756 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 267 (17 January 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 2755 of 2023 ; Miscellaneous Application 2756 of 2023

Judge

Anna B. Mugenyi, J

The High Court ordered stay-related security only upon a bank guarantee for the full decretal sum, rejecting a request to limit security to 5%.

• Stay Of Execution
• Security For Due Performance
• Bank Guarantee
• Decretal Sum
• Stay-of-execution
• Security-for-due-performance

Security Group Limited v Kigozi (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2022)

Security Group Limited v Kigozi (Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2022) [2023] UGIC 4 (13 January 2023)

Court

Industrial Court of Uganda

Case number

Labour Dispute Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2022

Judges

Wabwire Musana, J, Kagoye, Panel Member, Musimbi, Lapenga

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case for stay of execution pending appeal, particularly due to the contested award of aggravated damages and the existence of both an appeal and a cross-appeal. The applicant's counsel was deemed properly instructed, and the supporting affidavit was validly deposed by a principal officer. While the decree was extracted unilaterally, no miscarriage of justice occurred, but the court emphasized strict adherence to procedural rules in future. The court held that a conditional stay was appropriate, requiring the applicant to deposi…

Source excerpt

• Stay Of Execution
• Security For Due Performance
• Decretal Sum
• Affidavit Capacity
• Irregular Decree Extraction