Wakilii

Asaba v Kasangaki (Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2020)

High Court · [2020] UGHC 59 · 2020 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, arising from summary judgment entered in HCCS 008 of 2018
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditionally — applicant must deposit decretal sum within thirty days or respondent may execute

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 court granted conditional stay of execution pending appeal. While the applicant satisfied most requirements for stay of execution, the court held that furnishing security for due performance of the decree remained mandatory. The applicant was ordered to deposit the decretal sum of UGX 184,080,000 with the court within thirty days as security, failing which the respondent could proceed with execution.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditionally — applicant must deposit decretal sum within thirty days or respondent may execute

Facts

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent UGX 184,080,000 as commission arising from the sale of land measuring approximately 554 hectares (LRV 2433 Folio 10 Buruli Block 2 plot 46). The High Court had dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appear and defend the suit and entered summary judgment against him on 14 January 2020. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 15 January 2020 and this application for stay of execution on 16 January 2020, two days after the summary judgment. The respondent had initiated steps toward execution by filing a bill of costs and scheduling taxation for 16 January 2020. The applicant, a resident of South Africa, argued that execution would result in the sale of his sole property in Uganda, a family home in Fort Portal, Kabarole District.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's affidavit in reply should be struck off for failure to pay court fees.
  2. Whether the respondent's affidavit in reply should be struck off for late service on the applicant.
  3. Whether the application for stay of execution was made without unreasonable delay.
  4. Whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss if execution were not stayed.
  5. Whether the applicant's appeal would be rendered nugatory if execution were not stayed.
  6. Whether the applicant must furnish security for the due performance of the decree as a condition for stay of execution.

Orders

  • Execution stayed on condition that the applicant deposits the decretal amount (UGX 184,080,000) on the account of the Registrar of the High Court within thirty days from 17 June 2020.
  • Should the applicant fail to deposit the decretal sum within thirty days, the respondent is free to execute the decree.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the requisite court fees for filing the affidavit in reply.
  • The preliminary objections raised by the applicant are disallowed.
  • The costs of this application will abide the outcome of the applicant's appeal in the Court of Appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance of Decree — Mandatory Requirement
An applicant seeking stay of execution must furnish security for the due performance of the decree as a mandatory condition, except where the judgment creditor has already substantially executed the decree. The requirement balances the judgment creditor's right to enjoy the fruits of judgment against the court's obligation not to render the appeal nugatory.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Meaning
Substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution does not mean the ordinary loss which every judgment debtor suffers when deprived of property in consequence of losing a case. It must mean something additional and different — loss that causes great injustice and cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits in Reply — Court Fees — Effect of Non-Payment
No document in respect of which the requisite court fees have not been paid shall be used in proceedings. Where an affidavit in reply is filed without payment of court fees, the court may order the defaulting party to pay the fees rather than strike the document off the record, in exercise of its discretion to do substantive justice.
Civil Procedure — Service of Affidavit in Reply — Time Limit — Effect of Late Service on Applicant
Where an affidavit in reply is filed on the court record within the prescribed fifteen days under Order 12 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, delay in serving the applicant is a minor and curable error under article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, especially where substantive justice favours allowing the affidavit.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Deposit of Decretal Sum as Security
Where a judgment involves payment of money arising from a commercial transaction in which the judgment debtor received the funds from which the judgment sum is claimed, the court may require the judgment debtor to deposit the decretal sum with the Registrar as security for due performance of the decree, pending the determination of the appeal.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (10)

  • Mugume Ben and Another v Akankwasa Edward (2008) HCB 159
  • Margaret Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2011)
  • Stop and See (U) Limited v Tropical African Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Rolling Mills Limited and Another v Gestation Economique Des Mission Catholique and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 529 of 2009)
  • Banshididar vs. Pribku Dayal Air 41 1954
  • International Credit Bank Limited (in liquidation) vs. Tropical Commodities Supplies Limited and 2 others
  • Joseph vs Jebeile (1963) 1 GLR 387
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyaze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Nganga vs. Kimani [1969] EA page 67
  • Afaro v Uganda Breweries (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 12 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Asaba v Kasangaki (Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2020) [2020] UGHC 59 (17 June 2020)
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.