Wakilii

Batanda v Bollore Africa Logistics Limited [2025] UGCOMMC 72

High Court · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of a taxed costs decree pending determination of a civil appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

Application for stay of execution of taxed costs pending appeal dismissed. The applicant failed to satisfy essential requirements under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. While a valid appeal existed and there was imminent threat of execution, the court found the appeal lacked merit, the applicant demonstrated inaction over six years, and failed to prove substantial loss beyond ordinary consequences of losing a money decree or provide security for costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 182 of 2009 against the respondent claiming UGX 284,412,016 as special damages for alleged breach of an employment contract. The suit was dismissed on 25 January 2017 with costs to the respondent. The applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 94 of 2017 to the Court of Appeal. The respondent's bill of costs was taxed at UGX 46,902,720 and has never been paid. The respondent issued a notice to show cause why execution should not issue on 27 October 2023. The applicant filed this application on 29 November 2023 seeking a stay of execution pending determination of the appeal, contending the respondent intended to attach and sell his plot of land at Komamboga where he planned to build his family home. The appeal was filed on 26 May 2017 and the scheduling memorandum on 10 July 2017, but over six years later the appeal had not been set down for hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a notice of appeal
  2. Whether the appeal is not frivolous and has a likelihood of success
  3. Whether the application has been made without unreasonable delay
  4. Whether there is a serious or imminent threat of execution of the decree if the application is not granted
  5. Whether substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the stay of execution is granted
  6. Whether security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him or her
  7. Whether refusal to grant the stay would inflict greater hardship than it would avoid

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions under Order 43 Rule 4(3) CPR — All Conditions Must Be Satisfied
All the conditions laid down by Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules must be fulfilled before execution can be stayed, namely that substantial loss may result to the party applying, that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given for due performance of the decree.
Stay of Execution — Frivolous Appeal — Appeal Must Have Realistic Chance of Success
The court must be satisfied that the prospects of the appeal succeeding are not remote but that there is a realistic chance of succeeding. More is required than a mere possibility of success. The appeal will be considered frivolous if prima facie the grounds intended to be raised are without any reasonable basis in law or equity and cannot be supported by a good faith argument.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Money Decree Ordinarily Not Stayed Where Restitution Available
The words substantial loss cannot mean the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when he loses his case and is deprived of his property in consequence. Execution of a money decree is ordinarily not stayed since the satisfaction of a money decree does not amount to substantial loss or irreparable injury where the respondent is not impecunious and the remedy of restitution is available to the applicant in the event the appeal is allowed.
Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat — Notice to Show Cause Sufficient
An order of stay will issue only if there is actual or presently threatened execution. There must be unequivocal evidence showing unconditional steps that convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution. Steps demonstrating serious expression of intent include extracting the decree, presenting and having a bill of costs taxed, applying for issuance of a warrant of execution, and issuing a notice to show cause why execution should not issue.
Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Purpose as Shield Against Frivolous Appeals
Security for costs is intended to operate as a shield against the filing of frivolous and vexatious appeals which may never succeed yet have an effect in escalating trial costs. It operates as an insurance cover meant to indemnify the judgment creditor in the event the appeal fails without recourse to vigorous processes of recovering such costs.
Stay of Execution — Inaction and Delay in Prosecuting Appeal — Evidence of Lack of Good Faith
Where an applicant has filed an appeal but taken no steps to set it down for hearing over six years, this demonstrates inaction and dilatory conduct that indicates the appeal was filed for delay or not in good faith. A litigant has the duty to follow up on their case diligently and ensure it is fixed and heard.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4(3)

Cases cited (14)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa v Itobu Margret (HCMA No. 160 of 2022)
  • Ntege Mayambala v Christopher Mwanje (HCMA No. 721 of 1991)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Junaco (T) Limited & Others v DFCU Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 27 of 2023)
  • Baguma Paul T/A Panache Associates v Karuma Kagyina (HCMA No. 460 of 2020)
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Zaabwe & Others (HCMA No. 191 of 2006)
  • Formula Feeds Ltd v KCB Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co. SA (1995-1998) 1 EA 312
  • Bansidhav v Pribku Dayal AIR 41 1914
  • Kisaalu Joseph & 10 Others v Nakintu May & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2020)
  • Shem Mpanga Mukasa & Another v Kizza Clessy Barya (Miscellaneous Application No. 479 of 2021)
  • Wandera Michael v Baguma Samalie (Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2021)
  • Baguma Patrick v Sanyu Phiona (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 452 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Batanda v Bollore Africa Logistics Limited 2025 UGCommC 72 (10 February 2025)
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.