KAMPALA, Uganda | The High Court’s Commercial Division has denied Roko Construction Company’s request to halt the implementation of a court order compelling it to pay Pramukh Steel Limited more than Shs 1.5 billion.

Roko was sued by Pramukh Steel Limited in 2020 to recoup almost $400,000 for unpaid building supplies it provided. According to the court, Roko only paid $51,671 of the $450,850 it owed, leaving $399,156 outstanding.

Judge Cornelia Sabiiti Kakooza decided in favor of Pramukh in 2024 and mandated that Roko pay the remaining balance plus 10% interest per year until the matter was fully settled. Early this year, Pramukh moved to enforce the judgment after it was rendered.

In response, Roko filed an application for a stay of execution, claiming that it had a strong chance of winning its appeal and that it would incur significant financial losses if execution proceeded.

The grounds of the application were stated in the affidavit of Mark Koehler, the director of Roko Construction Limited, contending that the trial judge made a legal and factual error by failing to adequately consider the evidence and reaching the incorrect conclusion.

Pramukh Steel Limited, the respondent, contested the application on the grounds stated in the affidavit submitted in response to Senghani Bhavesg Virji, the company’s sales and marketing manager.

Pramukh Steel Limited claimed that Roko consistently obstructed the progress of civil suit no. 990/2020 by disobeying the court’s orders and that the application was filed in bad faith and on frivolous and vexatious grounds.

Parmukh Steel Limited continued by saying that the court ordered the parties to get together and settle the debt owed to Pramukh Steel Limited. Roko also requested the local purchase orders, which were obtained, but the company declined to pay the amounts owed.

Additionally, that court issued its ruling after the audit and reconciliation were completed.
workout, as mandated by the law. The applicant, however, refused to comply and pay the auditor’s fees, so they requested a court order mandating the payment of the auditors’ expenses in order to finish the process.

According to Justice Dr. Ginamia Melody Ngwatu’s decision, Roko had not met the legal conditions necessary to be granted a stay of execution.

“In consideration of the submissions made by both counsel for the applicant and the respondent and the law pertaining to applications for stay of execution pending appeal, this court is not convinced that the applicant has proved sufficient grounds,” she ruled.

“The appeal’s reasonable chance of success has not been demonstrated by the applicant. This application is unsuccessful and is therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent,” Justice Ginamia Melody Ngwatu stated.

Justice Ginamia Ngwatu Melody concluded that without a memorandum of appeal, this court cannot determine whether the Court of Appeal would reasonably reach a different conclusion than the trial court or whether the appeal has a chance of success.