Wakilii

Orient Bank Limited v Zaabwe and Another (Civil Application 19 of 2007)

Supreme Court · [2007] UGSC 31 · 2007 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application by notice of motion to a single Justice for an interim order staying execution of a Supreme Court judgment pending disposal of a related stay application
Decision
Application for interim stay of execution dismissed with costs as premature and improper

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 ex parte application by Orient Bank for an interim stay of execution of a Supreme Court judgment, a single Justice held the application premature and improper. Rule 6 of the Court's Rules applies only where an appeal is pending, and there was none. There was no evidence of any application for execution, and no decree embodying the Court's decision had been approved; the Justice could not foresee a Registrar issuing an execution order before a decree was settled. The application rested on speculation, and article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution did not assist it. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Facts

Mr. Zaabwe had sued Orient Bank, the second respondent and four others in the High Court, which dismissed the suit; the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal. On further appeal, the Supreme Court reversed both decisions, awarded Mr. Zaabwe shs. 200 million in aggravated damages, and made consequential orders. Mr. Zaabwe drafted a proposed decree and sent it to the applicant's advocates for approval, but they declined to approve the entire draft. The advocates filed Application No. 18 of 2007 seeking stay of execution and rectification of aspects of the judgment. Concurrently, Orient Bank filed the present application seeking an interim order staying execution pending disposal of a related stay application. At the time of the application, no decree had been settled or approved, and no application for execution had been made by the decree-holder. The Bank contended that, as a commercial bank holding customers' funds, a stay was prudent to preempt any sudden execution.

Issues

  1. Whether an application for an interim stay of execution can properly be brought under the Rules of the Supreme Court where no appeal is pending in that Court.
  2. Whether an application to stay execution is competent where no application for execution has been made and no decree embodying the Court's decision has yet been settled or approved.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules requires a pending appeal
An application for stay of execution under Rule 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court is only available where an appeal is pending in that Court; where no appeal is pending, the rule does not apply.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Prematurity where no decree settled or execution sought
An application to stay execution is premature and lacks basis where no application for execution has been made and no decree embodying the court's decision has yet been settled or approved, since an execution order cannot issue before a decree is settled.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Speculative apprehension insufficient
A stay of execution will not be granted on the basis of a speculative apprehension that the decree-holder may suddenly carry out execution; there must be a bona fide urgent necessity arising from a real possibility of execution and consequential injustice.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.6
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.18 r.2(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act s.101
  • Constitution of Uganda art.126(2)(e)

Cases cited (13)

  • T. M. K. Vs. Jack Businge and 2 others (Fortportal High Court Civil Misc. Application No. DR. MFP 2 of 1992)
  • Design Group Association Vs. Bank of Uganda HCC No. 34 of 1990
  • Horizon Coaches Ltd v F. Mutabazi and 3 others (Civil Application No. 27 of 2001)
  • Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Atabya Agencies Ltd (Civil Application No. 31 of 2004)
  • Haji J. Achikule v A. R. Nakaye (Civil Application No. 27 of 1994)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Uganda Bottlers Ltd (Civil Application No. 25 of 1995)
  • Francis Sembuya v All Port Freight (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 15 of 1998)
  • Idah Iterura v Joyce Muguta (Civil Application No. 2 of 2006)
  • Zaituna Kawuma v G. Mwaluram (Civil Application No. 3 of 1992)
  • Adam Vassiliadis v Libya Arab (U) Bank for Foreign Trade and Development Ltd (Civil Application No. 28 of 1992)
  • Salim Jamal & 2 Others v Uganda Oxygen Ltd & Another (Civil Application No. 13 of 1997)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businghye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
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.