Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited has suffered another legal setback after the High Court’s Commercial Division dismissed its application seeking to halt the execution of a court decree worth more than Shs146.8 million, paving the way for its former landlord to recover the outstanding compensation awarded against the bank.
In a ruling delivered on August 3, 2026, Acting Judge Dr. Ginamia Melody Ngwatu found that the bank had failed to satisfy the legal requirements necessary to obtain a stay of execution pending an intended appeal before the Court of Appeal.
The dispute stems from Civil Suit No. 665 of 2022, in which Brenda Nabaweesi sued Centenary Rural Development Bank for breaching a tenancy agreement.
On March 12, 2025, the Commercial Court ruled in Nabaweesi’s favour, holding that the bank had indeed breached the tenancy agreement and awarded her Shs49.73 million in special damages, Shs60 million in general damages, together with interest and costs.
Following the judgment, the bank filed a notice of appeal and requested court proceedings, signalling its intention to challenge the decision in the Court of Appeal.
However, while pursuing the appeal, the bank proceeded to make a partial payment towards the decree, settling the special damages award while indicating that it intended to contest the awards of general damages, interest and costs.
Bid to Stop Execution
After Nabaweesi initiated execution proceedings to recover the outstanding balance, the bank returned to court seeking orders staying execution until the intended appeal is determined.
The bank argued that its appeal had high chances of success, warning that execution would render the appeal meaningless. It also told court it was willing to provide security for the due performance of the decree if required.
Nabaweesi strongly opposed the application.
She argued that the bank had only made a partial payment despite the court’s decree, insisting that it remained liable for the outstanding sums, accrued interest and costs.
She further contended that the application was merely intended to delay her enjoyment of the fruits of a judgment obtained more than a year earlier. According to her affidavit, the bank had failed to actively pursue its appeal after filing a notice of appeal in March 2025 and only revived the matter after execution proceedings commenced.
Judge Faults Bank Over Late Submissions
Before addressing the merits of the application, Justice Ngwatu criticised the bank for failing to comply with court timelines for filing written submissions.
The court observed that the bank filed its submissions well after the deadlines without offering any explanation, thereby denying the respondent an opportunity to adequately respond.
Because of that failure, the judge declined to consider the bank’s written submissions and instead relied principally on the respondent’s arguments and the evidence before court.
Appeal Not Properly Demonstrated
The judge held that although the bank had filed a valid notice of appeal, it failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal had realistic prospects of success.
Justice Ngwatu noted that the bank never filed a memorandum of appeal showing the grounds upon which it intended to challenge the judgment.
The court also questioned the consistency of the bank’s position after it voluntarily paid part of the decree despite indicating in its notice of appeal that it intended to challenge the entire judgment.
While the bank claimed it had informed Nabaweesi that it would only pursue an appeal against general damages, interest and costs, the court found that no evidence had been produced to support that assertion.
Consequently, the judge ruled that the likelihood of success of the intended appeal had not been sufficiently established.
No Proof of Substantial Loss
A key requirement for obtaining a stay of execution is proving that substantial and irreparable loss would result if execution proceeds.
On this point, the court found the bank’s evidence wanting.
Justice Ngwatu held that merely claiming irreparable harm was insufficient, particularly after the bank had voluntarily complied with part of the judgment.
The ruling emphasised that an applicant must go beyond general statements and demonstrate actual substantial loss supported by evidence.
The judge found that the bank had failed to explain what specific harm it would suffer if execution continued.
Money Decree Not Enough
Although the court accepted that execution proceedings had already commenced and therefore posed an imminent threat, it held that this alone was not enough to justify stopping execution.
Justice Ngwatu observed that the decree involved payment of money and that, if the bank eventually succeeded on appeal, the law provides mechanisms for restitution.
Importantly, the bank failed to prove that Nabaweesi would be unable to refund the money should the Court of Appeal overturn the judgment.
For that reason, the judge concluded that execution would not render the intended appeal nugatory.
Security Issue Becomes Irrelevant
The bank had also expressed willingness to provide security for the due performance of the decree.
However, the court held that since the bank had failed to satisfy the principal legal requirements for a stay of execution, it was unnecessary to determine what security should be deposited.
Justice Ngwatu noted that security is only considered after an applicant establishes the primary grounds for obtaining a stay.
Application Dismissed
Having found that Centenary Rural Development Bank failed to establish the likelihood of success of its intended appeal, failed to prove substantial loss and failed to show that execution would render the appeal useless, the court dismissed the application in its entirety.
The judge also awarded costs of the application to Brenda Nabaweesi, further increasing the financial burden on the bank.
The ruling means Nabaweesi is now free to continue with execution proceedings to recover the remaining sums awarded under the original judgment unless the Court of Appeal grants the bank separate interim relief.
The decision marks yet another significant courtroom defeat for Centenary Rural Development Bank in the long-running tenancy dispute, with the High Court making it clear that merely filing a notice of appeal does not automatically shield a judgment debtor from enforcement where the legal conditions for a stay of execution have not been met.
