The Commercial Division of the High Court has dismissed an application filed by Shumuk Aluminium Industries Ltd and its Managing Director, Mukesh Shukla, seeking to stop the execution of a judgment in which Bank of Baroda is seeking to recover Shs 22.850 billion.
On June 2, 2026, the High Court ruled that Shumuk Aluminium should pay Bank of Baroda Shs 16,029,628,120.90, together with US$122,900.05, representing the outstanding amounts arising from overdraft and letter of credit facilities extended to the company.
The court also ordered Mukesh Shukla to pay an outstanding balance of Shs 6.36 billion under the terms of his personal guarantee deed.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Shumuk Aluminium and Shukla filed a notice of appeal. However, the appeal has not yet been determined.
While awaiting the outcome of the appeal, Shumuk Aluminium and its managing director applied for a stay of execution, arguing that proceeding with the judgment would expose them to irreparable or substantial loss.
Shukla argued that the intended execution would target specific mortgaged properties, including land located on Mukabya Road in Kampala and a sublease at the UMA Lugogo-Naguru Showground.
He maintained that selling the properties to bona fide third-party purchasers would make it impossible to restore them if the appeal succeeded. According to his application, even a refund from Bank of Baroda, regardless of the bank’s financial ability, would not compensate for the loss of the properties themselves.
Bank of Baroda opposed the application, arguing that it is a credible and regulated financial institution capable of refunding Shukla should his appeal ultimately succeed.
In her ruling, Justice Patience Rubagumya found that Shumuk Aluminium and Shukla had failed to establish grounds that would justify a stay of execution.
The judge noted that although the applicants claimed a notice of appeal had been filed with the Court of Appeal and attached to their affidavit as “B”, neither the court record nor the annexures contained a copy of the alleged notice.
Justice Rubagumya further observed that the applicants’ own affidavit indicated that a memorandum of appeal had not yet been filed.
“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,” the ruling states.
The court also rejected the argument that the appeal would be rendered meaningless if the properties were sold before the appeal was decided.
According to the judge, the applicants had not demonstrated that execution had actually been proved or that they faced substantial damage.
“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,” Justice Rubagumya ruled.
The court subsequently dismissed the application in its entirety and ordered Mukesh Shukla to meet the costs of the suit.
