The Commercial Division of the High Court has dismissed an application by Shumuk Aluminium Industries Ltd and Mukesh Shukla, its managing director, to stay the execution of a judgment in which Bank of Baroda sought to recover Shs 22.850 billion.
On June 2, 2026, the High Court delivered a ruling in which Shumuk Aluminium was directed to pay Bank of Baroda Shs 16,029,628,120.90/= (Sixteen Billion Twenty-Nine Million Six Hundred Twenty-Eight Thousand One Hundred Twenty and Ninety) and United States dollars $122,900.05 (One Hundred Twenty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Five Cents), as the total outstanding balance arising from the overdraft and letter of credit facilities advanced to them.
The ruling also directed that Mukesh Shukla pay the outstanding balance of Shs 6,360,000,000(Six Billion Three Hundred Sixty Million Only), as per the terms of the personal guarantee deed. Dissatisfied with the judgment, Shumuk Aluminium and its managing director, Mukesh Shukla, filed a notice to appeal the judgment. The Appeal is yet to be determined.
However, before the appeal is determined, Mukesh and his company filed an application for stay of execution of the ruling, arguing that they will suffer irreparable or substantial loss if the application is not granted. Mukesh argued in the application that the execution is intended to proceed against specific and unique mortgaged properties such as land at Mukabya Road, Kampala, and the sublease of land at UMA Lugogo Naguru Showground, Kampala.
He added that once these properties are sold to a bona fide third-party purchaser, restitution will be impossible and no subsequent refund of money by Bank of Baroda, however solvent, can restore them. In its defence, Bank of Baroda indicated it is a credible regulated financial institution which is capable of refunding Mukesh if his appeal were to be successful.
In her ruling, Justice Patience Rubagumya said Mukesh and Shumuk had failed to prove any condition warranting stay of execution. “Although it is averred under paragraph 5 of the affidavit in support that a notice of appeal was filed in the Court of Appeal and that it is annexed as “B”, a perusal of the annexures to the affidavit in support and the Court record does not show such a copy of the alleged notice of appeal.
Also, paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support shows that the memorandum of appeal has not yet been filed. In these circumstances, this Court has not been furnished with any proof of the existence of the Applicant’s appeal to guide the Court in determining this condition,” the ruling reads in part.
The court also rejected the claim that if Mukesh were to be successful on appeal, the ruling would have been made nugatory, as he would already have lost his property. “The execution sought to be stayed has not been proved, nor has evidence of substantial damage been proved. Therefore, this condition has not been proved,” the judge ruled before dismissing the entire application and ordering Mukesh to pay the costs of the suit-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
