The High Court Commercial Division in Kampala has dismissed an application by Shumuk Aluminium Industries Limited and businessman Mukesh Shukla seeking to halt the execution of a judgment in favour of Bank of Baroda Uganda Limited.
Justice Patience T.E. Rubagumya, in a ruling delivered on August 28, 2026, found that the applicants had failed to meet the legal requirements for the grant of a stay of execution pending their intended appeal.
The application arose from Civil Suit No. 138 of 2019, in which the High Court on June 2, 2026, entered judgment in favour of Bank of Baroda following a dispute over credit facilities extended to Shumuk Aluminium Industries.
Under the June judgment, Shumuk Aluminium Industries was ordered to pay the bank UGX 16.03 billion and USD 122,900.05 as the outstanding balance arising from overdraft and letter of credit facilities.
Mukesh Shukla was separately ordered to pay up to UGX 6.36 billion under the terms of a personal guarantee deed.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Shumuk Aluminium Industries and Shukla filed an application seeking to stop the bank from enforcing the judgment while they pursued an appeal in the Court of Appeal.
The applicants argued that they had filed a notice of appeal and requested certified typed proceedings from the High Court to enable them prepare and file a memorandum and record of appeal.
They maintained that allowing the bank to proceed with execution before the appeal is determined could render the appeal meaningless, particularly if mortgaged properties were sold.
Among the properties cited by the applicants were Plot 24 on Mukabya Road in Kampala and a sublease on Plot M700 at the UMA Lugogo Naguru Showground.
The applicants argued that the properties were unique and that, if sold to bona fide third-party purchasers, they could not simply be restored even if they later succeeded on appeal.
They also raised several issues they intended to challenge on appeal, including the conversion of USD 1.25 million at an exchange rate of UGX 3,884 per dollar, the calculation of unapplied interest, alleged failure to credit certain loan repayments and questions surrounding default and recall notices.
The applicants further challenged the judgment entered on the bank’s counterclaim, arguing that the court had not sufficiently considered evidence relating to part-performance and disputed interest and penalty calculations.
However, Bank of Baroda opposed the application, arguing that it was another attempt to delay recovery of a long-outstanding debt.
The bank maintained that merely filing a notice of appeal, or requesting certified proceedings, did not automatically stop execution of the judgment.
It further argued that the decree involved money that could be refunded if the appeal eventually succeeded, adding that as a regulated commercial bank, it was financially capable of making restitution if required.
In her ruling, Justice Rubagumya found that the applicants had not provided proof of a pending appeal.
The judge noted that although the applicants claimed to have filed a notice of appeal, the document was neither attached to their affidavit nor found on the court record. She further noted that the memorandum of appeal had not yet been filed.
“In these circumstances, this Court has not been furnished with any proof of the existence of the Applicant’s appeal,” the judge found, concluding that the applicants had failed to satisfy one of the key conditions for a stay of execution.
The court also found that Shumuk and Shukla had not provided evidence of a serious or imminent threat of execution.
While the applicants had stated that the bank was likely to begin execution proceedings, Justice Rubagumya said there was no evidence showing that Bank of Baroda had actually commenced execution of the decree.
The court also found that substantial or irreparable loss had not been proved.
Justice Rubagumya, however, found that the application had been filed without unreasonable delay, noting that it was lodged on June 11, just nine days after the judgment was delivered.
The applicants had also indicated their willingness to comply with any security requirements that the court might impose.
But the judge said that because the applicants had failed to prove most of the requirements necessary for a stay of execution, there was no basis for the court to make orders regarding security.
“Considering that the Applicants have not satisfied most of the conditions for the grant of this application, the application is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent,” Justice Rubagumya ruled.
The ruling, delivered electronically on August 28, 2026, clears the way for Bank of Baroda Uganda Limited to pursue enforcement of the June judgment unless the applicants obtain relief from a higher court.
English 