Wakilii

Atabya Agencies Ltd v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 109 of 2004)

High Court · [2004] UGCOMMC 145 · 2004 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Informal application for leave to appeal and stay of execution following a ruling in favour of the judgment creditor in a miscellaneous application arising from HCCS No. 1197 of 1999
Decision
Leave to appeal and stay of execution granted subject to security being furnished within 48 hours

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 leave to appeal and stay of execution on condition that Stanbic Bank deposit a bank draft for UGX 1,001,742,124 with the Registrar within 48 hours. The court applied the test from Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdner Bank A.G. that leave will normally be granted where prima facie there are grounds meriting serious judicial consideration. Despite concerns about the bank's willingness to fulfill its guarantee obligations, the court balanced interests by granting relief subject to security.

Outcome

Leave to appeal and stay of execution granted subject to security being furnished within 48 hours

Facts

Following an earlier ruling in favour of Atabya Agencies Ltd, Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd made an informal application for leave to appeal and stay of execution. The respondent bank had previously failed to furnish bank draft security at the Court of Appeal. Counsel for Stanbic Bank argued that the bank was prejudiced because it was declared not a party to an earlier appeal, and that by virtue of a Court of Appeal ruling, Uganda Commercial Bank Limited did not appeal hence there could not have been a proper demand under the guarantee. Counsel submitted that the amounts involved were large. The applicant initially did not offer security but later conceded to providing another guarantee, though counsel appeared not to have firm instructions on its nature. Counsel for Atabya Agencies argued that no serious grounds for appeal had been advanced and that the application was a delaying tactic.

Issues

  1. Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the grounds that there are prima facie grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration.
  2. Whether execution of the earlier ruling should be stayed pending appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Stay of execution granted on condition that Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd deposit with the Registrar of the Court a bank draft for UGX 1,001,742,124 within 48 hours from 18th May 2004.
  • The bank draft must be in favour of Atabya Agencies Ltd.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave to Appeal — Test for Granting Leave
Leave to appeal from an order in civil proceedings will normally be granted where prima facie it appears that there are grounds of appeal which merit serious judicial consideration.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security as Condition for Grant
Where large amounts of money are involved and leave to appeal is granted, the court may balance interests by granting a stay of execution on condition that the applicant furnishes security by way of a bank draft in favour of the respondent within a specified timeframe.
Civil Procedure — Informal Applications — Requirements and Entreatment
Informal applications for leave to appeal may be entertained where the party applying has instructions.

Cases cited (3)

  • Yunis Busingye vs Kyazze (a Supreme Court decision)
  • G.M. Combined (U) Ltd v A.K. Detergents (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 23 of 1994)
  • Sango Bay Estates Ltd v Dresdner Bank A.G. [1971] EA 17

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Atabya Agencies Ltd v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 109 of 2004) [2004] UGCommC 145 (17 May 2004)
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.