The Court of Appeal has halted enforcement of a High court decree requiring Casements (Africa) Limited and businessman Abid Alam to pay Chinese glass manufacturer Weihai Rongsheng Glasswork Co. Limited more than $338,000 (about Shs 1.27 billion). In a ruling delivered on August 28, 2026, Court of Appeal justice Florence Nakachwa stayed execution of the […] The post Court of Appeal halts Shs 1.27bn debt enforcement against businessman Abid Alam appeared first on The Observer Media Ltd .
The Court of Appeal has halted enforcement of a High court decree requiring Casements (Africa) Limited and businessman Abid Alam to pay Chinese glass manufacturer Weihai Rongsheng Glasswork Co. Limited more than $338,000 (about Shs 1.27 billion).
In a ruling delivered on August 28, 2026, Court of Appeal justice Florence Nakachwa stayed execution of the decree after Casements and Alam challenged the High court decision.
The applicants argued that enforcing the decree before their intended appeal is heard would expose them to substantial and irreparable loss and could render the appeal nugatory.
The dispute stems from three contracts signed in June 2022 under which Weihai agreed to supply Casements Africa with 40 crates of clear glass, 140 crates of tinted glass and 30 crates of laminated glass at a total cost of $338,800.52.
According to Weihai, the glass was shipped from China and delivered to Casements’ premises in Kampala Industrial Area, but the company failed to settle the invoice within the agreed 120-day payment period.
The Chinese company subsequently sued for recovery of the outstanding amount and obtained judgment in its favour. Casements and Alam, however, argued that they were denied an opportunity to defend the claim because of errors and failures by their former lawyers.
The applicants told court that after receiving the court documents in July 2025, they promptly instructed Karungi & Partners Advocates to file an application seeking leave to appear and defend the suit.
The lawyers filed the application in the High court on August 20, 2025, and it was scheduled for hearing on August 25. According to the applicants, their former lawyers failed to attend the hearing and did not inform them about the developments.
The application was consequently dismissed, paving the way for the default judgment.
Casements and Alam later instructed Muwema & Co. Advocates to seek the setting aside of the default judgment. They argued that they had acted diligently by instructing lawyers and should not suffer because of their advocates’ mistakes.
The High court dismissed that application in January 2026, prompting the intended appeal.
Debt acknowledged
Weihai opposed the application for a stay, arguing that Casements and Alam had repeatedly acknowledged the debt and entered into payment arrangements that they subsequently failed to honour.
The company further argued that the intended appeal had little merit and that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that enforcement of the monetary decree would cause irreparable loss.
Weihai told the Court of Appeal that it had already commenced execution proceedings, including seeking attachment of Alam’s shares in Casements, garnishee orders against the company’s bank accounts and the arrest and committal of Alam to civil prison.
Justice Nakachwa, however, found that the applicants had met the legal requirements for a stay of execution. She noted that at the stay stage, an applicant is not required to prove that the intended appeal will succeed, but only to demonstrate that it raises reasonable and arguable questions.
The judge found that the applicants had raised triable issues, including whether the dismissal of their application was caused by mistakes of their former lawyers or by their own dilatory conduct.
She also found that the intended appeal raised questions about whether the default judgment had been properly entered in accordance with the law.
On the question of irreparable harm, Justice Nakachwa found that the execution proceedings posed a particular risk because they could result in Alam’s arrest and imprisonment.
She held that imprisonment could cause psychological and mental harm that might not be easily reversed even if Alam ultimately succeeded in the appeal.
“The balance of convenience,” the judge held, favoured protecting Alam’s personal liberty while the intended appeal is pursued.
The court also found that the applicants had not delayed unreasonably in seeking relief, noting that they filed the Court of Appeal application shortly after the High court rejected their earlier application for a stay.
The stay means enforcement of the Shs 1.27 billion decree will be suspended pending the determination of the intended appeal.
The post Court of Appeal halts Shs 1.27bn debt enforcement against businessman Abid Alam appeared first on The Observer Media Ltd.
