Wakilii

Airtel Uganda Limited v Konshens & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 560 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 236 · 2024 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of a copyright infringement judgment pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Partial stay of execution granted allowing recovery of 70% of decretal sum pending appeal; application otherwise dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 court partially stayed execution of a copyright infringement judgment, permitting the respondents to recover 70% of their decretal sums pending appeal. The application for full stay was dismissed, as the applicant failed to establish high likelihood of success on appeal or substantial irreparable loss, given its admitted copyright infringement and the respondent's clear entitlement to compensation.

Outcome

Partial stay of execution granted allowing recovery of 70% of decretal sum pending appeal; application otherwise dismissed

Facts

In 2015, the 1st Respondent (an international music artist) sued the Applicant (Airtel Uganda) and three other respondents for copyright infringement relating to eight songs. On 21 August 2023, the High Court found that the Applicant and 3rd Respondent had infringed the 1st Respondent's copyright and awarded general damages of USD 180,000, exemplary damages of UGX 20,000,000, and interest. The Applicant admitted at trial that it vended the suit songs on its website without the 1st Respondent's consent and never paid him. The Applicant filed a notice of appeal on 24 August 2023 and Civil Appeal No. 1639 of 2023 in the Court of Appeal. The decree was sealed on 31 August 2023. The 1st Respondent's bill of costs was taxed and allowed at UGX 27,740,000 on 13 March 2024. On 25 March 2024, the Applicant applied to stay execution pending appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Respondent's affidavit in reply is incurably defective.
  2. Whether the execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 0545 of 2015 should be stayed pending the hearing and final disposal of Civil Appeal No. 1639 of 2023 by the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • An order is hereby issued restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents and their employees or agents from recovering more than 70% of the sums due to them, respectively, in the decree in Civil Suit No. 0545 of 2015 before the hearing and final determination of Civil Appeal No. 1639 of 2023 by the Court of Appeal.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for Grant
For a stay of execution pending appeal to be granted, an applicant must show: (a) filing of notice of appeal; (b) application made without unreasonable delay; (c) intended appeal is not frivolous and has high likelihood of success; (d) security given for due performance of decree; (e) serious or imminent threat of execution; (f) appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay not granted; and (g) refusal to grant stay would inflict more hardship than it would avoid.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Money Decrees Distinguished from Other Decrees
Execution by enforcing the satisfaction of a money decree does not ordinarily pose danger to the viability of an appeal due to the doctrine of restitution, which allows an appellate court to order a judgment creditor who has already recovered the decretal sum through execution before disposal of the appeal to refund that sum, or part thereof, to the judgment debtor upon success in the appeal.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Competence Where Authorisation Defective
Lack of authorisation to depone an affidavit is not a fatal defect and can be overlooked as long as the deponent of the affidavit has actual knowledge of the facts deponed to or, in an interlocutory application, truly believes that what he or she swears to is true and correct.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Threat of Execution — Overt Steps Required
For an order of stay of execution to be issued, there must be an immediate and direct danger that the decree will be executed before disposal of the applicant's appeal. The judgment creditor should have taken overt steps aimed at enforcing the decree, such as extraction of the decree, filing and taxing of the bill of costs, filing of an application for issuance of a warrant, or issuance of a notice to show cause why execution should not issue. A stay of execution cannot be granted on the basis of a presumed or anticipated danger of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Money Decrees
In applications for stay of execution of money decrees, substantial loss does not refer to any particular quantum of money that could be lost if the application is not allowed, but rather to any loss of real value which affects the applicant's interests and which cannot be undone once inflicted. Since a decretal sum can be ordered to be refunded after judgment in the appeal, no substantial loss arises if such sum is recovered by the judgment creditor before the appeal is decided, where the judgment creditor is not impecunious.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Partial Stay — Court's Discretion
Where the balance of convenience favours the respondent and the appellant's entitlement to part of a money decree is uncontested, the court may grant a partial stay of execution, permitting the respondent to recover a substantial portion (such as 70%) of the decretal sum pending disposal of the appeal, while restraining recovery of the remainder which is the subject of genuine appellate challenge.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (SC Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (CA Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Junaco (T) Limited & 2 Others v DFCU Bank Limited (HCMA No. 27 of 2023)
  • Samuel Kabagambe Ntungwa & 2 Others v Florence Kekibuga Ntungwa (HCMA No. 110 of 2022)
  • Bankone Limited v Simbamanyo Estates Limited (HCMA No. 645 of 2020)
  • Kuruma s/o Kaniu v R [1955] AC 197
  • Alice Wambui Nganga v John Ngure Kahoro and another, ELC Case No. 482 of 2017 (at Thika); [2021] eKLR

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Airtel Uganda Limited v Konshens & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 560 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 236 (9 August 2024)
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.