Uganda Court of Appeal: Stays Execution Pending Appeal, Waives Security

On October 20, 2026, the Court of Appeal of Uganda, in *Summit Project Limited v Ndiyo Holdings Limited* (Civil Application 46 of 2026), granted a stay of execution pending appeal, citing an arguable appeal and the risk of irreparable business harm, while also waiving the requirement for security.

The Court of Appeal considered an application for a stay of execution of a judgment or order, pending the determination of an appeal. The court found two critical conditions met: first, that there was an "arguable appeal" with a reasonable prospect of success, indicating that the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious; and second, that proceeding with the execution of the judgment would cause "irreparable business harm" to the applicant, Summit Project Limited, which could not be adequately compensated by damages if the appeal ultimately succeeded. Notably, the court also exercised its discretion to waive the requirement for security, which is often a prerequisite for granting a stay of execution to safeguard the respondent's interests.

This ruling provides important guidance on the principles governing applications for stay of execution pending appeal in Uganda. It reaffirms that applicants must demonstrate both a prima facie arguable appeal and the potential for substantial, irreparable harm if the stay is not granted. The waiver of security is particularly significant, as it indicates the court's willingness to consider the specific financial circumstances and potential hardship faced by an applicant, departing from the usual practice of requiring security. This can be crucial for businesses facing immediate financial distress from an adverse judgment, offering a pathway to preserve their operations while pursuing an appeal.

Applications for stay of execution are typically governed by procedural rules, such as the Judicature Act and the Court of Appeal Rules in Uganda, which empower appellate courts to grant such relief. The established legal principles for granting a stay include demonstrating a likelihood of success on appeal (or at least an arguable appeal) and that substantial loss would result if the stay is not granted, which cannot be compensated by damages. The discretion to waive security is an equitable power exercised sparingly, usually when the applicant can demonstrate inability to furnish security without jeopardizing their business, or where the merits of the appeal are exceptionally strong. The key parties involved were Summit Project Limited, the applicant for the stay, and Ndiyo Holdings Limited, the respondent to the application.

Attorneys advising clients seeking to stay execution of judgments must meticulously prepare their applications, clearly articulating both the arguable points of appeal and the specific, irreparable harm that would result from execution. The decision to waive security is a significant development, suggesting that practitioners should be prepared to present compelling evidence of financial hardship or exceptional circumstances to persuade the court to exercise this discretion. Conversely, attorneys opposing such applications should be ready to challenge the alleged irreparability of harm and the strength of the appeal. This case highlights the Court of Appeal's pragmatic approach to balancing the rights of judgment creditors and appellants, particularly when business continuity is at stake.