China Henan International Corporation Group Company Limited v Kyabahwa (Civil Application No. 101 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 Single Justice granted an interim order of stay of execution pending determination of the substantive application before the full bench. The court held that an applicant for an interim order need only show a lodged notice of appeal, a pending substantive application, a serious threat of execution, and no undue delay, and that the merits of the appeal and the respondent's ability to refund are matters for the full bench. The court held that a garnishee order already made absolute completes execution and cannot be stayed (only set aside), but that the one remaining garnishee order nisi—not yet absolute—could be stayed. An interim stay was therefore granted to prevent further payments.

Outcome

Interim stay of execution granted, stopping further unexecuted payments pending determination of the substantive application for stay (Miscellaneous Application No. 100 of 2021) by the full bench

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant for US$900,000, claiming breach of a consultancy agreement and that a deed of variation was illegal and void. The High Court delivered judgment in favour of the respondent on 19 March 2021, awarding the principal sum plus US$200,000 damages for breach of contract and US$250,000 general damages for inconvenience, with documents indicating a total decreed sum of US$1,485,000. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 24 March 2021 and requested the record of proceedings. The respondent commenced garnishee proceedings: an order against Stanbic Bank was made absolute, and an order against Uganda National Roads Authority was also made absolute, realising over US$1,000,000. A further garnishee order nisi against Guaranty Trust Bank (Uganda) Ltd remained pending, fixed for hearing on 20 April 2021, and had not been made absolute. The applicant's High Court applications for stay of execution were dismissed. The applicant then filed a substantive stay application in the Court of Appeal (MA No. 100 of 2021) and the present application for an interim order.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution pending the hearing of the substantive application for stay of execution.
2. Whether the application had been overtaken by events given that certain garnishee orders had already been made absolute and execution completed.
3. Whether execution levied by way of a garnishee order made absolute can be stayed.

Orders

• An interim stay of execution is granted staying any further execution of the decree and stopping any further payments not yet executed in High Court Civil Suit No. 721 of 2020.
• The interim stay is to subsist pending the determination by the full bench of Miscellaneous Application No. 100 of 2021.
• Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.1(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.6(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.42(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.43(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.44(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.76
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Act s.38(c)
• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 23 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 23 r.3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 23 r.7

Cases cited (18)

• Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
• E.B. Nyakana & Sons Ltd v Kobusingye (Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2017)
• National Forestry Authority v Muhereza Basaliza (Miscellaneous Application No. 380 of 2018)
• Kenya Shell Ltd versus Kibiru and another [1986 - 1989] EA 266
• American Cynamid Co. versus Ethicon [1975] 2 W.L.R 316
• Uganda Revenue Authority v Nsubuga Guster (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2018)
• Wilson v Church (1879) Vol 12 Ch. D 454
• Ssekikubo v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
• Ssekikubo v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
• Re Overseas Aviation Engineering (GB) Ltd [1962] 3 All ER 12
• Blackman v Fysh ([1892] 3 Ch at p 217)
• Choice Investments Ltd v Jeromnimon (Midland Bank Ltd, garnishee) [1981] 1 All ER 225
• Unique Holdings Ltd v Business Skills Trust Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 402 of 2012)
• Trans Trust S P R L v Danubian Trading Co Ltd [1952] 1 All ER 970
• Suisse Atlantique Société D'armement Maritime S A v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1966] 2 All ER 61
• Pritchard v Westminster Bank Ltd [1969] 1 All ER 999, [1969] 1 WLR 547
• Rainbow v Moorgate Properties Ltd [1975] 2 All ER 821, [1975] 1 WLR 788
• Joachimson v Swiss Bank Corpn [1921] 3 KB 110

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.

• Junaco (T) Limited and 2 Others v DFCU Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application 27 of 2023)

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