Akeem Badiru v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2080 of 2025)
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
Application for stay of execution pending appeal dismissed. The applicant failed to demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable damage or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if execution proceeded. Where a decree is for payment of money and the respondent is not shown to be impecunious, satisfaction of the decree does not ordinarily render an appeal nugatory because restitution is available if the appeal succeeds.
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent
Facts
The respondent bank obtained judgment against the applicant in Civil Suit No. 682 of 2018 for USD 70,000 with interest at 10% per annum plus taxed costs of UGX 19,141,531. The applicant filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 659 of 2024) and sought stay of execution. On 3 September 2025, the court issued a Notice to Show Cause Why Execution Should Not Issue. The applicant filed this application on 17 September 2025 seeking to stay execution pending the appeal. The applicant is a British national with no known property in Uganda and has not been resident in the country for a considerable period.
Issues
- Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds for the grant of an order of stay of execution of the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 682 of 2018?
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.37
- Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.43
- Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 43 rule 4(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 43 rule 4(3)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 43 rule 4(5)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rule 1
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rule 3
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 rule 3
Cases cited (6)
- Oriental Insurance Brokers Limited v Transocean (U) Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1995)
- Olivia da Ritta Siqueira E Facho v Siqueira [1933] 15 KLR 34
- Jadva Karsan v Harnam Singh Bhogal [1953] 20 EACA 74
- Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and 3 Others v Attorney General and 4 Others (Supreme Court Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
- Eriabu Kabigiza v Lawrence Sserwanja [1975] HCB 199
- Formula Feeds Limited and 3 Others v KCB Bank Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.