The High Court Commercial Division has dismissed an application by Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited seeking to stop the execution of a court decree requiring the bank to compensate its former landlord, Brenda Nabaweesi, pending the determination of an intended appeal.
In a ruling delivered on August 3, 2026, Acting High Court Judge Dr. Ginamia Melody Ngwatu found that the bank had failed to satisfy the legal requirements necessary for the grant of a stay of execution and ordered it to pay the costs of the application.
The application stemmed from an earlier judgment in Civil Suit No. 665 of 2022, in which Nabaweesi successfully sued the bank for breaching a tenancy agreement.
In the March 12, 2025 judgment, the court awarded her UGX 49.73 million in special damages, UGX 60 million in general damages, together with interest and costs after finding that the bank had breached the tenancy contract.
Although the bank filed a notice of appeal shortly after the judgment, it also made a partial payment towards the decree by settling the award for special damages while indicating that it intended to continue challenging the awards of general damages, interest and costs.
However, after Nabaweesi initiated execution proceedings to recover the outstanding amount, the bank returned to court seeking an order staying execution until the Court of Appeal determines its intended appeal.
Through its Senior Legal Officer Rodney John Mulindwa, the bank argued that the intended appeal had a high likelihood of success and would be rendered meaningless if execution proceeded before the appellate court heard the matter.
The bank further contended that it would suffer irreparable harm if execution was allowed to continue and expressed willingness to provide security for the due performance of the decree should the court require it.
Nabaweesi opposed the application, arguing that the bank had only made a partial payment that fell well below the decretal amount and that the application was merely intended to delay her enjoyment of the fruits of a judgment obtained more than a year earlier.
She also maintained that the bank had taken no meaningful steps to prosecute its intended appeal after filing the notice of appeal and insisted that there would be no substantial loss if execution proceeded.
Before considering the merits of the application, Justice Ngwatu noted that the bank failed to file its written submissions within the timelines earlier directed by the court.
The judge observed that the bank eventually filed its submissions several weeks late without providing any explanation for the delay, thereby denying the respondent an opportunity to adequately respond to the arguments raised.
Consequently, the court disregarded the bank’s submissions and proceeded to determine the application primarily on the basis of the respondent’s submissions and the evidence on record.
In determining the application, the court considered the conditions governing stay of execution under the Civil Procedure Rules, including whether the appeal had a likelihood of success, whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss, whether there was unreasonable delay and whether security had been offered.
Justice Ngwatu acknowledged that the bank had properly filed a notice of appeal, satisfying the first procedural requirement.
However, she held that the bank failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal had realistic prospects of success because it never presented its memorandum of appeal for the court to examine.
The judge further observed that although the notice of appeal indicated an intention to challenge the entire judgment, the bank had already voluntarily complied with part of the decree by paying the special damages.
According to the court, no evidence was presented showing that the bank had formally limited its appeal to the remaining awards of general damages, interest and costs.
The judge therefore concluded that the likelihood of success had not been sufficiently demonstrated.
The court also rejected the bank’s argument that it would suffer irreparable harm if execution proceeded.
Justice Ngwatu held that the bank merely made broad assertions of substantial loss without presenting concrete evidence to show that the execution would result in irreparable damage beyond the ordinary consequences of litigation.
The judge observed that voluntarily complying with part of the decree further weakened the bank’s claim that execution would cause substantial loss.
Although the court agreed that there was a genuine threat of execution because execution proceedings had already commenced, it ruled that this alone was insufficient.
The judge explained that execution of a monetary decree does not ordinarily render an appeal nugatory where the successful party is capable of refunding the money should the appeal later succeed.
She noted that the bank had failed to demonstrate that Nabaweesi would be unable to repay the money if the Court of Appeal eventually overturned the judgment.
Application dismissed
Having found that the bank had failed to satisfy the essential legal requirements for a stay of execution, the High Court dismissed the application with costs in favour of Nabaweesi.
The ruling clears the way for the respondent to continue with execution proceedings to recover the outstanding decretal amount while the bank remains free to pursue its intended appeal before the Court of Appeal.
English 