Wakilii

Parambot Distillers Limited and Another v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Limited (Civil Application No. 65 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 118 · 2025 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending the determination of Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2025

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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

On an application for stay of execution pending appeal against a UGX 7.1 billion guarantee judgment, the single Justice overruled three preliminary objections, holding that a party sued jointly and severally who has knowledge of the facts may depone a supporting affidavit, and that the application was properly before the Court because the applicants had filed first in the High Court but were frustrated by that court's failure to act. Applying the Ssekikubo principles, the Court found the appeal raised arguable grounds amounting to a prima facie case and that the imminent threat of execution, including possible civil imprisonment, posed irreparable damage. The application was granted.

Facts

The respondent bank sued the applicants in HCCS No. 924 of 2020 as guarantors of a facility issued to Parambot Breweries Ltd, and the High Court (Commercial Division) decreed that they pay UGX 7,100,000,000 as the guaranteed amount. The applicants filed a notice of appeal and later a memorandum of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2025, challenging the finding of the principal debtor's default and their liability as guarantors. They had earlier filed a substantive stay application (Misc. Application No. 1081 of 2024) and an interim stay (Misc. Application No. 1273 of 2024) in the High Court; the substantive application abated for want of validation on ECCMIS, and the interim application remained pending ruling. The respondent had filed a taxation application and opened an execution file (EMA No. 0259 of 2024), with a notice to show cause fixed for hearing, raising the prospect that the 2nd and 3rd applicants could be confined in civil prison. The applicants then sought a stay of execution from the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was incompetent for want of a supporting affidavit from the 3rd applicant and for lack of authorisation for the 2nd applicant to depone on behalf of the other applicants.
  2. Whether the application was improperly before the Court of Appeal for failure to first prosecute a stay application in the High Court under Rule 42.
  3. Whether the applicants established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success on appeal.
  4. Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable damage or the appeal be rendered nugatory if a stay of execution were not granted.

Orders

  • An order for stay of execution is issued restraining the respondent, its servants and/or agents from executing the judgment and orders delivered on 2nd May 2024 in HCCS No. 924 of 2020.
  • Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Supporting affidavit by a party sued jointly and severally
A person sued jointly and severally who has personal and material knowledge of the facts may depone a supporting affidavit in her own right and on behalf of co-parties, and such an affidavit satisfies Rule 44(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
Civil Procedure — Stay of execution — Rule 42 — Application first made to the High Court
Where an applicant has filed a stay application in the High Court but is frustrated by that court's failure to act, the requirement under Rule 42 to apply first in the High Court is satisfied and the Court of Appeal may properly entertain the application.
Civil Procedure — Stay of execution — Governing principles
To obtain a stay of execution an applicant must establish a prima facie case or likelihood of success on appeal and that irreparable damage will be suffered or the appeal rendered nugatory if a stay is refused; the balance of convenience is considered only where the first two limbs are in doubt, and the application must be brought without delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of execution — Arguable appeal — Avoiding definitive findings
An arguable appeal need not necessarily succeed but must raise serious questions worthy of judicial interpretation, and on a stay application the court must not make definitive findings of fact or law that would embarrass the hearing of the main appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of execution — Irreparable damage — Imminent threat of execution
Irreparable damage means injury that cannot be adequately atoned for in damages, and an imminent threat of execution evidenced by a fixed notice to show cause and the prospect of the judgment debtors' confinement in civil prison establishes such damage justifying a stay.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 42
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 44(1)
  • Evidence Act s.133
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order I Rule 12

Cases cited (8)

  • Kaingana V Dabo Boubou (1986) HCB 59
  • Miriam Kuteesa v Edith Nantumbwe and Others (Civil Application No. 20 of 2014)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Akright Projects Ltd V H & L Exporter Ltd; No. 1288 of 2023
  • Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter & 5 Others [2013] eKLR
  • Giella v. Cassman Brown & Co. [1973] E.A 358
  • American Cynamide vs Ethicon [1975] 1 ALL E.R 504
  • Emaku Joseph and Another v Emulu Ojamuge (Miscellaneous Application No. 140 of 2023)
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.