Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Atabya Agencies Ltd [2013] UGSC 11

Supreme Court · 2013 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second civil appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal

Decision

Appeal dismissed; appellant liable to pay further interest till payment in full as ordered in the original decree.

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 Supreme Court dismissed the bank's second appeal. The decree in the original suit ordered interest on the decretal sum "till payment in full". The sum deposited with the Registrar was a condition for a stay of execution made for the appellant's own benefit, so that it was the appellant, not the respondent, that was denied use of the money while pursuing its appeals. Accordingly, further interest continued to accrue from the date of deposit until the appeal was disposed of, and the executing court could not lawfully review or set aside the decree's interest order. Consenting to deposit the sum to obtain the stay did not amount to a knowing, voluntary waiver of the right to interest.

Facts

The respondent obtained a money decree against Uganda Commercial Bank Ltd in HCCS No. 1197 of 1999, which provided for interest on the decretal sum till payment in full. The appellant bank later became liable as surety for performance of that decree. Pursuing successive unsuccessful appeals, the appellant obtained a stay of execution from the Supreme Court on condition that it deposit UGX 1,110,595,410 (the decretal sum plus interest accrued to 22 December 2004) with the Registrar. After the appellant's appeal failed, the respondent collected the deposited money and demanded a further UGX 148,031,294 as interest for the period from 22 December 2004 (deposit) to 22 March 2006 (delivery of judgment). The appellant refused, contending no interest accrued on money held in court. The High Court agreed, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding further interest was due. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence and erred in holding that the appellant was not liable for further interest after the decretal sum and accrued interest were deposited into the Supreme Court as a condition for stay of execution.
Whether the respondent waived its right to further interest by consenting to payment of the decretal sum into the Supreme Court pending the appeal.

Orders

The Court of Appeal's order that the appellant pay the respondent interest accrued till payment in full, as stated in the decree in HCCS No. 1197 of 1999, is upheld.
The appeal is dismissed with costs in this Court and in the courts below.

Key headnotes

Interest — Decretal interest on sums deposited into court as a condition for stay of execution

Where a decree directs that interest be paid on the decretal sum till payment in full, money deposited into court as a condition for a stay of execution does not stop interest from accruing; further interest continues to run until the sum is actually paid to the judgment creditor.

Stay of Execution — Effect and benefit of a conditional deposit into court

A deposit made into court as a condition for a stay of execution is for the benefit of the judgment debtor, who is thereby denied use of the money only while pursuing its appeal; the judgment creditor remains entitled to the interest provided by the decree.

Waiver — Requirements for a valid waiver of a right

A party waives a right only where it abandons it knowingly and voluntarily with full knowledge of the facts; consenting to deposit the decretal sum into court in order to obtain a stay of execution does not amount to a waiver of the right to interest under the decree.

Construction of Documents — Reading the instrument as a whole

In construing an instrument, including a court order, the whole document and the language used must be read to ascertain the intention of its maker, without importing a canon of construction extending beyond the particular instrument.

Execution — Jurisdiction of the executing court over the terms of a decree

An executing court determining whether further interest accrues acts neither as an appellate court nor in review of the decree; it must give effect to the terms of the decree, and cannot lawfully review or set aside the interest order made therein.

Legislation cited (4)

Civil Procedure Act s.98
Civil Procedure Act s.26
Judicature Act s.33
Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 Rule 1

Cases cited (1)

In re Jodrell; Jodrell v Seale [1890]

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.