Wakilii

Centenary Rural Development Bank v Dorcas Nanjero (Civil Application No 585 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 205 · 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 determination of the application for leave to appeal; the attached motor vehicle ordered released.

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

The applicant bank sought a stay of execution of Commercial Court orders cancelling its mortgage and awarding the respondent estate UGX 140,000,000 in general damages, pending its application for leave to appeal. Sitting as a single Justice, the Court of Appeal held that under Rule 76(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules a notice of appeal may be lodged before leave is obtained where an appeal lies only with leave, so the notice was competent. Applying the Theodore Ssekikubo principles, the Court found the appeal raised arguable questions, that estate beneficiaries might be unable to refund distributed funds, and that the balance of convenience favoured the bank. Security for due performance was not mandatory. Stay granted and the attached vehicle ordered released.

Facts

The respondent's predecessor, the late Odongpiou Stanislaus Emmanuel, owned land comprised in Kyadondo Block 184 Plot 43, on which Centenary Rural Development Bank had registered a mortgage. In Commercial Court Misc. Cause No. 44 of 2020 the deceased obtained orders cancelling the mortgage as erroneously registered and an award of UGX 140,000,000 in general damages, the bank contending that the Lands Office had mistakenly registered on that title a mortgage relating to Busiro Block 184 Plot 43. The bank's application to review and set aside those orders (Misc. Application No. 285 of 2021) was dismissed in April 2022. The bank filed a notice of appeal and sought leave to appeal and a stay in the High Court; both were dismissed in June 2023. It then applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal (Civil Application No. 259 of 2023). The respondent's bill of costs was taxed at UGX 18,220,000, bringing the decretal sum to UGX 158,220,000; a warrant of attachment issued and one of the bank's vehicles was attached and advertised for sale. The bank brought this application to stay execution pending determination of its leave application.

Issues

  1. Whether a notice of appeal lodged before leave to appeal was obtained is competent under Rule 76(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.
  3. Whether the applicant was required to furnish security for due performance of the decree as a condition of a stay in the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • An order for stay of execution issued in Miscellaneous Cause No. 44 of 2020 and Miscellaneous Application No. 285 of 2021 pending final determination of Civil Application No. 259 of 2023.
  • The applicant's motor vehicle which had been attached and advertised for sale to be released.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant Pending Appeal
An applicant for a stay of execution pending appeal must establish a likelihood of success or a prima facie case of the right to appeal, that irreparable damage will be suffered or the appeal rendered nugatory if a stay is refused, that the balance of convenience lies in its favour, and that the application was brought without delay.
Civil Procedure — Notice of Appeal — Lodging Before Grant of Leave
Under Rule 76(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, where an appeal lies only with leave or on a certificate that a point of law of general public importance is involved, it is not necessary to obtain leave or a certificate before lodging the notice of appeal; such a notice is therefore competent and supports an application for a stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success — Arguable Appeal
On the likelihood-of-success requirement it is unnecessary to delve into the merits of the appeal; it suffices that the applicant shows the appeal is not frivolous and raises genuine, arguable triable questions of law and fact that merit adjudication by the court.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
Furnishing security for due performance of the decree is not a mandatory requirement for a stay of execution in the Court of Appeal; the court may order a stay even without such security, the matter being one of unfettered judicial discretion to be exercised on the facts of each case.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Court of Appeal Rules r.2(2)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.6(2)(b)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.76(4)
  • Judicature Act, cap 16, s.12
  • Civil Procedure Act, cap 282, s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules r.4(3)

Cases cited (5)

  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Vishram Ravji Halai v Thornton & Turpin Nairobi Civil Application No. [unclear] of 1990 [1990] KLR 365
  • Consolidated Marine v [unclear] and Another Nairobi Civil Application No. [unclear] of 1969 (COA)
  • Nsabimana v Lokana and Another (Civil Application No. 232 of 2023)
  • Joel Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Civil Application No. 4 of 2012) [2013] UGSC 75
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.