Wakilii

Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited v Mubiru (Civil Application 9 of 1997)

Supreme Court · [1997] UGSC 23 · 1997 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to the Supreme Court for stay of execution of a High Court decree pending an intended appeal
Decision
Application granted; execution of the High Court decree stayed pending the intended appeal

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 Supreme Court granted Barclays Bank's application to stay execution of a High Court decree pending its intended appeal. Although the mere filing of a notice of appeal under Rule 5(2)(b) does not by itself entitle an applicant to a stay, and it is sometimes necessary to require security, the applicant had already deposited the decretal sum in court. Taking judicial notice that the applicant was a long-established commercial bank, with no evidence that the appeal was frivolous or that the bank would fail to satisfy the decree if unsuccessful, the court was satisfied that a stay was proper and that the sum already deposited was sufficient security.

Outcome

Application granted; execution of the High Court decree stayed pending the intended appeal

Facts

The respondent, Godfrey Mubiru, had sued the applicant, Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd, to recover damages for wrongful dismissal. The High Court (Okalebo, Ag. J.) gave judgment on 9 May 1992 in the respondent's favour, awarding him salary and allowances for the period from 31 May 1990 until the date he would have retired, but did not quantify the award, so the parties were to agree the form of the decree. After intervention of the Principal Judge, quantification was directed before a Deputy Registrar, and the decree was eventually settled by Tinyinondi, J. on 15 January 1997. The applicant filed a notice of appeal and then moved the Supreme Court for a stay of execution pending the appeal, having already deposited a sum in court as security.

Issues

  1. Whether this was a proper case in which to order a stay of execution of the High Court decree pending the intended appeal.
  2. Whether the security already deposited by the applicant in court was sufficient for the performance of the decree.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the decree ordered pending the determination of the intended appeal.
  • The sum already deposited in court held to be sufficient security for the performance of the decree.
  • Costs of the application to abide the determination of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Effect of a Notice of Appeal Under Rule 5(2)(b)
The mere filing of a notice of appeal does not of itself entitle an applicant to a stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b); the court retains a discretion and may require the applicant to provide adequate security before granting a stay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security and the Standing of the Judgment Debtor
Where the applicant has already deposited the decretal sum in court and is a long-established commercial entity against which there is no evidence of a frivolous appeal or of inability to satisfy the decree, a stay of execution may properly be granted and the sum already deposited treated as sufficient security.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Rules of the Court r.5(2)(b)
  • Rules of the Court r.41
  • Rules of the Court r.42
  • Civil Procedure Act O.7 r.5

Cases cited (2)

  • Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Supreme Court Civil Application No. 25/1995 (unreported)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited v Mubiru (Civil Application 9 of 1997) [1997] UGSC 23 (8 April 1997)
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.