Wakilii

Abid Alam vs Windriver Logistics Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 219 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 81 · 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. The court held that while the applicant would not suffer substantial loss from payment of the fine (as it could be recovered on successful appeal), the peculiar circumstances of the case—involving loss of life resulting from 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 HCMA No. 133 of 2021 and ordered to pay UGX 300,000,000 or face six months' imprisonment in civil prison. 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 threat of execution had been proven, that the applicant remained in contempt, and that security should be required.

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 security for due performance has been given or offered; (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
Substantial loss does not represent any particular amount or size and cannot be quantified by any particular mathematical formula. It refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value, as distinguished from a loss without value or a loss that is merely nominal. Where a monetary fine can be recovered upon successful appeal, the applicant is not likely to suffer substantial loss from payment pending appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
Whether or not security for costs is required in an application for stay of execution must be determined on the merits of each case. The decision whether to order security for due performance must be made in consonance with the probability of success of the appeal and the status of the applicant. The objective of requiring security is to ensure that courts do not assist litigants to delay execution through filing vexatious and frivolous appeals, not to fetter the right of appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Full Decretal Sum
While the practice of ordering security for the entire decretal sum has the effect of stifling possible appeals, in exceptional circumstances where the applicant has demonstrated readiness and ability to furnish security and the facts are anomalous—such as where contempt of court orders resulted in loss of life—the court may require security for the full decretal amount 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 & Others v Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)
  • Andrew Kisawuzi v Dan Oundo (Miscellaneous Application No. 467 of 2013)
  • Nsangiranabo v Col. Kaka Bagyenda & Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 671 of 2019)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina & 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 vs Windriver Logistics Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 219 of 2021) [2022] UGHC 81 (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.