Wakilii

Barclays Bank Limited v Electro Watts (Uganda ) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 722 of 2020)

High Court · [2020] UGCOMMC 154 · 2020 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of parts of judgment in HCCS 139 of 2016, pending intended appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution conditionally granted, subject to provision of security within 30 days

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

Court granted conditional stay of execution of parts of judgment in underlying suit (general damages, interest, and costs) pending appeal. Applicant satisfied some but not all prerequisites for stay: Notice of Appeal was timely filed, applicant offered security for decree performance, and execution was potentially imminent. However, applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss or likelihood of appeal success. Stay granted on condition that applicant furnish bank guarantee for judgment sum and cash deposit for costs within 30 days, failing which the application would be dismissed.

Outcome

Stay of execution conditionally granted, subject to provision of security within 30 days

Facts

Barclays Bank Limited and a co-defendant (Wasswa Abdul) were ordered by the Commercial Court in HCCS 139 of 2016 to jointly and severally pay Electro Watts Uganda Limited general damages of UGX 113,016,750, interest at 6% per annum until payment in full, and costs of the suit. Barclays Bank filed a Notice of Appeal on 20 March 2020, fourteen days after judgment was delivered on 6 March 2020. The bank sought stay of execution of the judgment pending the appeal, offering to furnish security in the form of a bank guarantee. The intended appeal was against the general damages awarded, interest thereon, and costs. Barclays argued it would suffer substantial loss due to reduced liquidity and lost interest earnings if required to pay out the sum pending appeal. The respondent opposed, arguing that no grounds of appeal had been formulated despite the bank having the judgment, and that the bank had not shown inability to recover the money if the decree was executed and the appeal succeeded.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the prerequisites for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 43 rule 4 CPR
  2. Whether the applicant demonstrated that substantial loss would result if stay of execution is not granted
  3. Whether the intended appeal has a likelihood of success

Orders

  • Stay of execution granted on condition that applicant furnish bank guarantee for UGX 113,016,750 in favor of respondents, issued by third party bank, payable on demand following determination of appeal.
  • Applicant to make cash deposit with Court of UGX 20,000,000 as security for costs in Civil Suit No. 139 of 2016.
  • Securities to be effected within 30 days from date of ruling, failing which application shall stand dismissed and execution shall proceed unfettered.
  • No order as to costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Prerequisites — Distinction Between Substantive and Interim Applications
In a substantive application for stay of execution pending appeal, an applicant is not required to adduce evidence of imminent execution of the decree, unlike in an interim application where proof of serious threat of execution is a prerequisite.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Prerequisites — Substantial Loss
To satisfy the prerequisite of substantial loss in an application for stay of execution, an applicant must demonstrate the respondent's inability to refund the money if the appeal succeeds, not merely lost revenue opportunities or reduced liquidity pending appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Prerequisites — Likelihood of Success — Need for Draft Grounds of Appeal
While a court considering an application for stay of execution must not delve into the merits of the intended appeal, the court should be accorded some insight into the nature of the appeal, usually by having draft grounds or a memorandum of appeal availed, to assess likelihood of success and prevent frivolous applications.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditional Grant — Security for Due Performance of Decree
Where an application for stay of execution has limited merit and appears to be brought as a matter of course to delay execution, the court may grant a conditional stay requiring the applicant to furnish security for due performance of the decree to curb wastage of court time and ensure the respondent's entitlement to the fruits of the decree is not jeopardized should the appeal fail.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Kirenga Fred (Miscellaneous Application No. 91 of 2014)
  • Asante Aviation Limited v Stanbic Bank (Uganda) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 555 of 2020)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v The Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina and another (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Kitende Apollonaries Kalibogha and 2 others v Mrs. Eleonora Wismer (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2010)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussien and 2 others (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Barclays Bank Limited v Electro Watts (Uganda ) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 722 of 2020) [2020] UGCommC 154 (6 November 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.