Uganda Corporation Creamaries Limited and Another v Reamaton Limited (Civil Application 71 of 1999)

Court of Appeal · [2000] UGCA 37 · 2000 Application Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application for stay of execution pending disposal of a civil appeal under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Decision

Application for stay of execution struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The applicants sought a stay of execution pending disposal of Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1999. That appeal had been filed pursuant to an order extending time to file a fresh notice of appeal, but the order extending time was set aside on a reference to the full Court, rendering the appeal a nullity. The Court held that, with no valid notice of appeal or appeal pending as required by rule 5(2)(b) of the Rules, the application for stay was incompetent. The application was accordingly struck out with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The applicants were defendants in High Court Civil Suit No. 738/95, in which judgment was entered against them for US$365,000 plus interest at 25% per annum in favour of the respondent. At the start of the trial a preliminary decree for US$211,200 had been entered on the applicants' admission, against which they did not appeal. The applicants filed a notice of appeal and Appeal No. 9 of 1998, obtaining a stay of execution from the High Court. The notice of appeal was struck out for failure to take an essential step, and the appeal was struck out on 3 July 1998. The applicants obtained an order extending time to file a fresh notice and appeal (Misc. Application No. 44 of 1999) from a single Judge, then filed Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1999 and this application for stay. On a reference to the full Court (Reference No. 55 of 1999), the order extending time was set aside as null and void, rendering the appeal a nullity.

Issues

Whether an application for stay of execution under rule 5(2)(b) can be sustained where the appeal it relates to has been rendered a nullity.

Orders

Application struck out for being incompetent.
Costs awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirement of a Pending Appeal under Rule 5(2)(b)

An application for stay of execution under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules cannot succeed where there is no valid notice of appeal or appeal pending, as the existence of a pending appeal is a precondition for such relief.

Civil Procedure — Effect of Setting Aside Order Extending Time — Nullity of Subsequent Appeal

Where an order extending time to file a notice of appeal and the appeal is set aside on reference as null and void, any appeal filed pursuant to that order is rendered a nullity, and applications dependent on the existence of that appeal become incompetent.

Legislation cited (1)

Court of Appeal Rules r.5(2)(b)

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.