Centenary Bank Loses Bid to Halt Court Order in Favour of Former Landlord

The High Court Commercial Division has dismissed an application by Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited seeking to stop the execution of a court decree worth about Shs146.8 million while it pursues an appeal against a judgment in favour of its former landlord, Brenda Nabaweesi.

In a ruling delivered on August 3, 2026, Dr. Ginamia Melody Ngwatu held that the bank had failed to satisfy the legal requirements for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.

The dispute stems from Civil Suit No. 665 of 2022, in which Nabaweesi sued the bank for breach of a tenancy agreement, seeking compensation for repairs, lost rental income, general damages and costs.

Brenda Nabaweesi sued Centenary Rural Development Bank for a declaration that the defendant breached a tenancy agreement, special damages of UGX 72,800,000 as repair costs, UGX 84,000,000 as lost rental income, general damages and costs of the suit.

Nabaweesi claimed that on 29th March 2011 and 31st August 2012, she executed tenancy agreements with the Centenary Bank over her premises comprised in Block 245 Plot 551 at Kiwuliriza, Kabalagala in Kampala District.

The rented premises were the entire ground floor of a commercial building and an additional space of 160 square meters, at a monthly rate of UGX 5,000,000/= and UGX 4,300,000/= respectively. She added that at the 
Centenary Bank’s instance, the two tenancy agreements were consolidated in a letter dated 18th March 2016.

Nabaweesi went on to claim that, on 4th May 2017 and 11th May 2017, the parties executed two other five-year tenancy agreements on the 2nd floor of her premises and an additional 480 square meters, at a monthly rent of UGX 12,000,000/=. She continued to claim that pursuant to the tenancy agreements she completed all the pre-entry works as stipulated in clause 4 and let the premises to the Centenary Bank in good tenantable condition.

“On 25th April 2018, the defendant [Centenary Bank] issued to the plaintiff [Nabaweesi] a notice to terminate the tenancy. The plaintiff avers that the defendant was aware that upon termination of the tenancy it had to hand over the premises in a good tenantable condition as per clauses 4(e), (j) and 5 (e), (j) of the tenancy agreement. However, upon inspection, the premises were not found in tenantable condition due to the damage caused by reckless removal of the defendant’s fixtures,” court documents seen by The Pearl Times indicated. 

“The plaintiff contends that the defendant was in breach of the tenancy agreement when upon termination they did not hand over the premises in a good tenantable condition for which she seeks damages. The plaintiff made efforts to contact the defendant to make good on the damage caused by the removal of the fixtures in vain, hence
this suit.”

On March 12, 2025, the Commercial Court found in Nabaweesi’s favour, awarding her Shs49.73 million in special damages, Shs60 million in general damages, together with interest and costs.

Dissatisfied with the decision, Centenary Bank filed a notice of appeal on March 26, 2025, indicating that it intended to challenge the entire judgment before the Court of Appeal.

However, the bank later paid part of the decretal amount relating to special damages while maintaining that it intended to continue appealing against the awards of general damages, interest and costs.

The judge found this position inconsistent.

“It is observed that in its notice of appeal, the applicant expressed an intention to appeal against the whole decision. However, it is evident… that the applicant has partially satisfied the decree by paying the award of special damages,” Justice Ngwatu ruled.

She added that although the bank claimed it had informed the respondent that it would only pursue an appeal against the remaining awards, “no evidence was presented before this court with respect to the same.”

“Consequently, I find that the likelihood of success of the appeal against the whole decision when it has been partially satisfied has not been sufficiently demonstrated,” she ruled.

Court Rejects Claim of Irreparable Harm

The bank argued that execution of the decree before determination of the appeal would render the appeal nugatory and expose it to irreparable harm.

Justice Ngwatu rejected that argument, noting that the bank had merely made general assertions without supporting evidence.

“In my view, having voluntarily complied with part of the decree, the applicant has not demonstrated what substantial loss it stands to suffer if the stay sought is not granted,” the ruling states.

“The applicant merely deposed that it will suffer irreparable harm if execution is not stayed. However, mere apprehension of loss without cogent evidence does not satisfy this requirement.”

The court further observed that payment of a money decree does not ordinarily render an appeal useless where the successful party is capable of refunding the money if the appeal succeeds.

“The applicant has not demonstrated… that the respondent is not in position to pay any monetary award in the event that the intended appeal is successful.”

Delay Not an Issue

Although the judge found that the application had been filed without unreasonable delay and acknowledged there was a real threat of execution because execution proceedings had already commenced, she held that those factors alone were insufficient to justify a stay.

The court also noted that while the bank had expressed willingness to provide security for the due performance of the decree, there was no need to determine that issue since it had already failed to satisfy the key legal requirements for granting a stay.

Late Court Submissions Criticised

Justice Ngwatu also faulted Centenary Bank’s lawyers for failing to file their written submissions within the timelines set by court.

The applicant’s submissions were filed several weeks late without any explanation, denying the respondent an opportunity to respond.

“As a result, I am inclined to disregard the applicant’s submissions,” the judge ruled.

Application Dismissed

Having found that the bank failed to establish a likelihood of success on appeal, substantial loss or that its appeal would be rendered nugatory, the court dismissed the application.

“In light of the foregoing, the applicant having not satisfied the essential requirements for the grant of this application, this application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.”

The decision clears the way for Nabaweesi to continue with execution proceedings to recover the outstanding decretal amount unless the Court of Appeal intervenes.