Wakilii

Abid Alam v Windriver Logistics Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 219 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 31 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of contempt of court orders pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditional upon furnishing security of UGX 300,000,000

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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

The High Court granted a stay of execution of contempt of court orders pending appeal, conditional upon the applicant furnishing security of UGX 300,000,000. The court found that the applicant had lodged a timely notice of appeal, filed the application without unreasonable delay, and raised grounds meriting appellate consideration. While the court held that depositing the fine in court would not constitute substantial loss as it could be recovered on successful appeal, the peculiar circumstances involving loss of life resulting from the contempt warranted requiring full security for due performance.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditional upon furnishing security of UGX 300,000,000

Facts

The applicant had been found in contempt of court in Miscellaneous Application No. 133 of 2021 and ordered to pay UGX 300,000,000 or alternatively be committed to civil prison for six months. The contempt finding arose from violation of court orders in HCMA No. 23 of 2021, which violation resulted in loss of life. On 20 December 2021, the court delivered its ruling finding the applicant in contempt. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 21 December 2021 and this application for stay of execution on 23 December 2021. The applicant expressed willingness to furnish security for costs and due performance. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that no evidence of substantial loss had been adduced and that the applicant should deposit the full decretal sum as security.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant should be required to furnish security for due performance of the contempt order.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution allowed.
  • Applicant to furnish security for due performance to the tune of UGX 300,000,000 (Three Hundred Million Shillings).
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Principles for Grant
An applicant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must demonstrate: (1) that a notice of appeal has been lodged; (2) that substantial loss may result unless the stay is granted; (3) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (4) that the applicant has given or is willing to give security for due performance; (5) that there is serious or imminent threat of execution; (6) that the application is not frivolous and has a likelihood of success; and (7) that refusal to grant the stay would inflict more hardship than it would avoid.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Where a contempt order requires payment of a fine that can be deposited in court and recovered upon successful appeal, the applicant is not likely to suffer substantial loss warranting a stay of execution on that ground alone, as the deposited sum remains recoverable.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
The decision whether to order security for due performance must be made according to the circumstances of each particular case and in consonance with the probability of success of the appeal. The status of the applicant and the nature of the case should be considered, and the practice of ordering security for the entire decretal sum should not be applied mechanically as it may stifle possible appeals.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Contempt Cases
In anomalous circumstances where contempt of court orders resulted in loss of life, and the applicant has demonstrated readiness and ability to furnish security, the court may properly order security for the full decretal sum as a condition for granting a stay of execution.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (10)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd v International Air Transport Association (Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)
  • Andrew Kisawuzi v Dan Oundo (Miscellaneous Application No. 467 of 2013)
  • Nsangiranabo v Col. Kaka Bagyenda and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 671 of 2019)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Amuanaun Sam v Opolot David (Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Wilson v Church (1879) 12 Ch. D 454

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abid Alam v Windriver Logistics Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 219 of 2021) [2022] UGHC 31 (15 August 2022)
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.