Wakilii

Alcon International ltd v Kasirye, Byaruhanga,& Co Advocates (Misc. Application .No. 438 OF 1995)

High Court · [1996] UGHCCD 5 · 1996 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of taxation order pending intended appeal to the High Court
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

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 dismissed the application for stay of execution of a taxation order. The court held that while procedural defects (citing the wrong statutory provision) could be cured under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause or special circumstances justifying a stay. The existence of an appeal alone does not constitute sufficient cause; the applicant must show substantial loss, lack of undue delay, and provide security.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

Alcon International Ltd, a construction company, engaged Kasirye, Byaruhanga & Co Advocates in October 1993 for legal services relating to the award of a US$16,160,000 construction tender for the Social Security House. On 5 October 1995, the respondent firm lodged a bill of costs totalling UGX 537,883,500 for taxation. On 11 December 1995, the Deputy Registrar taxed off UGX 295,895,667, allowing UGX 254,104,333. The applicant filed a notice of intention to appeal on 18 December 1995 and on 21 December 1995 applied for stay of execution pending the appeal. The applicant alleged mispresentation by respondent's counsel and that their own counsel acted contrary to instructions during the taxation proceedings.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution is competent having been brought under the wrong procedural provisions.
  2. Whether an appeal exists for purposes of granting a stay of execution where only a notice of intention to appeal has been filed.
  3. Whether sufficient cause and special circumstances have been shown to warrant a stay of execution of the taxation order.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Invocation of Inherent Jurisdiction — Availability of Specific Procedural Rules
Section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act conferring inherent jurisdiction can only be competently invoked where there is no other provision providing the procedure to be followed; where a specific rule exists, such as Order 39 rule 4 for stay of execution pending appeal to the High Court, the specific provision governs.
Civil Procedure — Procedural Defects — Curative Provisions — Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution
Procedural defects that do not prejudice the other party or occasion injustice may be cured under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which directs courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities; the invocation of the wrong statutory provision does not vitiate proceedings where the correct procedure (notice of motion) was nevertheless followed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Meaning of 'Appeal' — Notice of Intention to Appeal
For the purposes of applications for stay of execution, the word 'appeal' includes the procedure started by filing a notice of intention to appeal; once such notice is filed, the appeal procedure is put in place and an application for stay may competently be made.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Sufficient Cause — Test
The fact of preferring an appeal does not in itself constitute sufficient cause for granting a stay of execution; the applicant must affirmatively demonstrate special circumstances and satisfy the court that substantial loss may result, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given for due performance of the decree or order.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Taxation of Costs
The mere fact that taxed costs constitute a large sum of money does not, in itself, constitute substantial loss for purposes of a stay of execution; where the applicant may recover improperly paid fees upon success on appeal, no substantial loss is proved.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (9)

  • Mugenyi & Co. Advocates vs. National Insurance Corporation
  • Francis Nansio Micah v Nuwa Walakira (Civil Application No. 9 of 1990)
  • Salume Namukasa v. Yosefu Bukya, (1966) E.A. 433
  • Iron and Steel Wares Ltd. vs. Mat & Co. Ltd. (1956) EACA
  • Ujaga Singh vs. Runda Coffee Estates Ltd. (1966) E.A. 263
  • Connie Kabanda vs. Kananula Melvin Consultanting Engineering Civil Suit No. 884 of 1990 (Unreported)
  • Baker vs. Avelier 14 Q.B. 769
  • KCC Vs. National Pharmacy Ltd. (1979) HCB. 215
  • Samali Democratic Republic Vs. A.S. Treon Civil Application No. 11 of 1988

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Alcon International ltd v Kasirye, Byaruhanga,& Co Advocates (Misc. Application .No. 438 OF 1995) [1996] UGHCCD 5 (1 March 1996)
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.