Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Roko Construction Limited v Pramukh Steel Limited (Civil Application No. 275 of 2025) [2025] UGCA 224 (17 July 2025)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal, finding no irreparable harm, no security, and an out-of-time notice of appeal.
Roko Construction Limited v Pramukh Steel Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 117 (4 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed Roko Construction’s application for stay of execution pending appeal, finding no proof of likely success or substantial loss.
DFCU Bank Limited v Crane Management Services Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0236 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 142 (1 April 2025)
The High Court granted DFCU Bank a stay of execution pending appeal, finding the application timely and the appeal arguable, with a real risk of nugatory effect.
Kironde v Bank of Africa Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 795 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 352 (2 December 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to stay execution pending appeal, finding no imminent execution, no substantial loss shown, and no adequate security.
Kesacon Services Limited v Stanbic Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1171 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 172 (27 August 2021)
The High Court refused to amend a notice of appeal and denied stay of execution, finding the defect technical and the stay requirements largely unmet.
All Ports Freight Service v Kamanyi and Sembuya (Civil Suit 409 / 95) [1997] UGHC 24 (20 February 1997)
The court found that, although the general practice is not to stay execution of money decrees, each case must be considered on its merits. In this instance, the aggregate decretal sum was substantial (Shs.250,000,000), and there was a real possibility that the applicant would suffer substantial loss if the decree was executed and the appeal later succeeded. The applicant had made the application without undue delay and had furnished security in the form of unencumbered land valued at Shs.75,000,000. However, the court held that security must be equivalent to the full decretal sum, not merely…
Source excerpt
