Wakilii

China New Future (Uganda) Ltd v Hewlett- Packard Development Company Ltd (Misc. Application No. 013 of 2014)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 43 · 2014 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal arising from civil suit
Decision
Stay of execution granted on condition that applicant deposits UGX 20,000,000 as 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

The court held that while Order 43 r.4(3)(c) CPR requires security for due performance of the decree as a precondition for stay of execution, the court should take a practical approach that does not stifle the appeal. Security should be based on quantified amounts rather than speculative figures. The applicant was ordered to deposit UGX 20,000,000 as security, representing the general damages awarded, within 30 days.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted on condition that applicant deposits UGX 20,000,000 as security within 30 days

Facts

The applicant had been ordered in Civil Suit No. 97 of 2013 to pay general damages of UGX 20,000,000 and costs, with condemned goods to be destroyed. The applicant sought stay of execution pending appeal under Order 43 r.4(3) CPR. The parties agreed in principle to the stay but disputed the amount of security required. The respondent sought UGX 80,000,000 to cover general damages, costs, and estimated destruction costs of UGX 30,000,000. The applicant argued that security should be limited to quantified amounts and that requiring excessive security would render the appeal nugatory.

Issues

  1. What security must be furnished by an applicant for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 43 r.4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules?

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution granted subject to conditions.
  • Applicant to deposit Shs.20,000,000 in court within 30 days as security for recovery of general damages.
  • Applicant to proceed with appeal after complying with the security requirement.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Security Requirements under Order 43 r.4(3)(c)
Order 43 r.4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires security for due performance of the decree as a precondition for stay of execution, but the court must take a practical approach that ensures the appeal will not be rendered nugatory while protecting the successful party's ability to recover quantified amounts if the appeal fails.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Quantum of Security Based on Quantified Amounts
Where a bill of costs has not been taxed and other decretal amounts remain unascertained, security for stay of execution should be based only on quantified amounts on record rather than speculative or estimated figures.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Global Capital Save Ltd & Ben Kamiya v Ben Okiror & Alice Okiror (Misc. Application No. 48 of 2012)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & others Vrs. International Credit Bank
  • Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze Vrs. Eunice Busingye

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

China New Future (Uganda) Ltd v Hewlett- Packard Development Company Ltd (Misc. Application No. 013 of 2014) [2014] UGHCCD 43 (23 March 2014)
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.