Wakilii

Amos Nzeyi v Menna Tewahade (Civil Application No. 544 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 423 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

On an application for a stay of execution of a money decree pending appeal, the single Justice held that although the applicant had established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success, he had not shown that he would suffer irreparable damage or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory. As the respondent was the holder of the decree and would be in a position to refund the judgment sum if the appeal succeeded, and as the applicant retained control of the company and the shares, no irreparable damage arose. The balance of convenience therefore lay with the respondent, who should not be deprived of the fruits of his judgment. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent sold all his shares in Innscor Uganda Limited to the applicant for an agreed sum of US$450,000, of which the applicant paid an initial US$50,000 and a further US$50,000 during proceedings. When the applicant declined to pay the balance, the respondent sued in HCCS No. 288 of 2011, and the High Court found the applicant liable to pay US$230,000 plus costs. The applicant appealed and sought a stay of execution, arguing that his appeal raised substantial issues, that the respondent was domiciled in the United States with no assets in Uganda and no means of refunding the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded, and that the suit shares had never been transferred to him. The respondent opposed the application, contending that the appeal was frivolous, that the respondent as decree holder could refund the sum if the appeal succeeded, and that the respondent's foreign domicile had long been known to the applicant.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant adduced sufficient evidence to justify the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • The stay of execution sought in HCCS No. 288 of 2011 is declined.
  • The application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Exercise of Discretion
The discretion conferred on the Court of Appeal by Rule 6(2)(b) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) to grant a stay of execution must be exercised on well-established principles, not arbitrarily.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
To obtain a stay of execution pending appeal an applicant must establish a likelihood of success or a prima facie case, that he will suffer irreparable damage or that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if a stay is refused, where the balance of convenience lies, and that the application was instituted without delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Irreparable Damage — Meaning of Substantial Loss
Substantial loss does not mean the ordinary loss to which a judgment debtor is necessarily subjected on losing a case; the applicant must establish that execution will create a state of affairs that irreparably negates the essential core of his success on appeal, being a loss that cannot be undone once inflicted.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Ability of Decree Holder to Refund
Where the respondent is the holder of the decree and would be in a position to refund the judgment sum should the appeal succeed, payment of the judgment sum does not occasion irreparable damage, and the balance of convenience favours the decree holder, who should not be deprived of the fruits of his judgment.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Rule 2
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Rule 6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Rule 42(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Rule 76

Cases cited (4)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • China Henan International Cooperation Ltd v Justus Kyabahwa (Civil Application No. 100 of 2021)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 331

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Amos Nzeyi v Menna Tewahade (Civil Application No. 544 of 2024) [2025] UGCA 423 (29 January 2025)
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.