Ugandan Alam family has lost a bid to halt execution proceedings against its members over a nearly decade-old judgment involving Steel Rolling Mills after Uganda’s High Court rejected their application for a stay pending appeal.

Justice Karoli Lwanga Ssemogerere of the High Court in Kabale dismissed an application by Alam Faiz, Alam Ali Mehbub, Alam Sami, Alam Younus, Ugandan tycoon Abid Alam, the CEO and controlling shareholder of the Alam Group and Steel Rolling Mills, allowing Jackson Muhummuza to continue enforcement proceedings after the court previously lifted the company’s corporate veil.

The September 29 ruling allows Jackson Muhummuza to continue enforcement proceedings after the court previously lifted Steel Rolling Mills’ corporate veil, opening the way for execution against individuals behind the company.

Court rejects bid to suspend execution

The dispute traces back to Civil Suit No. 55 of 2015, which ended in a consent judgment on October 4, 2016. After attempts to execute the judgment against Steel Rolling Mills failed, Muhummuza returned to court seeking to lift the company’s corporate veil.

The High Court granted that application on November 13, 2025, allowing execution proceedings against the individual applicants.

The Ugandan Alam family subsequently filed a notice of appeal and sought a stay, arguing that execution would cause substantial loss and that their intended appeal raised serious legal and factual questions.

Muhummuza opposed the application and said he had exhausted available remedies in attempting to enforce the judgment. His lawyers had also demanded payment of Ush320.99 million ($81,203) within seven days.

Ugandan Alam family failed to demonstrate appeal prospects

Justice Ssemogerere found that the applicants had failed to satisfy key requirements for a stay of execution pending appeal.

Although they filed a notice of appeal on November 17, 2025 and requested typed proceedings, they did not demonstrate further substantive steps to prosecute the appeal.

They also failed to attach a draft memorandum of appeal setting out the grounds they intended to challenge.

The judge held that merely claiming an appeal had a high likelihood of success was insufficient to establish that it raised arguable issues.

Court highlights nearly decade-long enforcement battle

The court also found that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that execution would cause irreparable harm.

Justice Ssemogerere noted that the underlying consent judgment remained binding because no application had been made to set it aside.

The court further found that, because the decree was monetary, the applicants should have offered substantial security for its performance while the appeal was pending. No such security was offered.

The judge also considered the length of time Muhummuza had spent seeking to enforce the judgment, finding that the balance of convenience did not favour stopping execution after almost 10 years.

“10 years in pursuit of satisfaction of a judgment is hardly a case where the balance of convenience favors the applicant,” the judge said.

The court found that the applicants had fully satisfied only one of the five requirements for a stay and partly satisfied another. The application was therefore dismissed, with costs awarded to Muhummuza.

The ruling does not determine the Ugandan Alam family’s intended appeal against the lifting of Steel Rolling Mills’ corporate veil. It instead removes the immediate High Court stay they sought, allowing enforcement proceedings to continue unless another court intervenes.