Asante Aviation Limited and 3 Others v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited and Another (Civil Application No. 286 of 2020)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court declined to grant an interim stay of execution. The applicants had already obtained a conditional order of stay from the High Court requiring deposit of 70% of the decretal sum, with which they were aggrieved. The Court held that where the High Court and Court of Appeal have concurrent jurisdiction, an application for stay must first be made in the High Court, and only if refused may a fresh application be brought. Because the High Court had already granted (not refused) a stay, and the applicants' real grievance was the conditions imposed, the application was a disguised appeal against those conditions and was barred by res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for interim stay of execution dismissed with costs

Facts

The first applicant obtained aviation loan facilities and an overdraft from the first respondent bank, secured by personal guarantees of the second, third and fourth applicants. Following default, the bank sued for recovery of USD 2,387,909. In consolidated High Court Civil Suits No. 532 and 792 of 2014, judgment was entered on 14 July 2020 in favour of the bank, decreeing the applicants jointly and severally pay USD 2,291,006.37. The applicants filed a Notice of Appeal and applied to the High Court for stay of execution. On 16 October 2020 the High Court granted stay on condition the applicants deposit 70% of the decretal sum within 30 days in two instalments. The applicants, considering these conditions harsh and unconscionable, filed substantive and interim applications for stay in the Court of Appeal. The applicants' grounded aircraft (Reg. No. 5X-AMC) had been advertised for sale on 21 October 2020.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal should grant an interim order of stay of execution where the High Court has already granted a conditional order of stay of execution of the same decree.
2. Whether bringing a fresh application for stay of execution in the Court of Appeal, when the High Court has already determined the matter, offends the doctrine of res judicata.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Judicature Act, Cap. 13 s.12(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, S.I 13-10 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, S.I 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, S.I 13-10 r.42(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, S.I 13-10 r.43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, S.I 13-10 r.44
• Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 71 s.7

Cases cited (4)

• Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2008)
• Akright Projects Limited v Executive Property Holdings Limited and 12 Others (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2011)
• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• Joel Kato and Another v Nuulu Nalwaga (Civil Application No. 12 of 2011)

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.

• Airtel Uganda Limited v Garfield Spence a.k.a. Konshens & Mtech Limited (Civil Application 458 of 2024)

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