By Joseph Muyingo
The High Court has cleared the way for Bank of Baroda to pursue recovery of a multi-billion-shilling debt from Shumuk Aluminium Industries Ltd and its managing director, Mukesh Shukla, after rejecting their application to temporarily halt execution of a previous judgment.
The Commercial Division of the High Court dismissed the application after finding that Shumuk Aluminium and Shukla had not provided sufficient evidence to justify a stay of execution.
Justice Patience Rubagumya ruled that the applicants had claimed to have filed a notice of appeal, but had not placed a copy of the notice before court.
The judge also noted that the memorandum of appeal had not yet been filed, leaving the court without evidence of a substantive appeal to consider when determining whether execution should be halted.
The dispute follows a June 2, 2026 judgment ordering Shumuk Aluminium to pay Bank of Baroda more than Shs16 billion, together with about US$122,900, arising from outstanding overdraft and letter of credit facilities.
Shukla was separately ordered to pay Shs6.36 billion under a personal guarantee deed, bringing the total monetary obligations covered by the judgment to about Shs22.39 billion, excluding the dollar-denominated amount.
Shumuk and Shukla had argued that enforcement could result in the sale of mortgaged properties, including land on Mukabya Road in Kampala and a sublease at the UMA Lugogo Naguru Showground.
They contended that selling the properties to third parties would make recovery difficult even if their intended appeal succeeded.
Bank of Baroda, however, maintained that it is a regulated financial institution capable of refunding any money recovered should the applicants ultimately succeed on appeal.
In dismissing the stay application, Justice Rubagumya found that the applicants had not demonstrated the substantial loss or other legal grounds required to suspend execution.
The court subsequently dismissed the application and ordered Shumuk Aluminium and Shukla to meet the costs.
The underlying dispute remains subject to the applicants’ stated intention to challenge the June judgment through the appellate process.
