Wakilii

Engola v Acire (Civil Suit 370 of 1992)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 53 · 1993 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree under Order 19 Rule 26 and Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Decision
Stay of execution granted by consent pending determination of notice of motion to set aside exparte judgment

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

Order 19 Rule 26 requires a pending suit instituted by the judgment debtor against the decree holder, meaning a separate substantive cross-suit, not a notice of motion within the same suit. A notice of motion to set aside an exparte judgment does not constitute a pending suit for purposes of Rule 26. However, the court has inherent jurisdiction to entertain stay applications even where procedures are faulty if the matter is urgent. Stay granted by consent with applicant to deposit decretal sum in court.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted by consent pending determination of notice of motion to set aside exparte judgment

Facts

The respondent held a decree against the applicant in HCCS No. 370/92 and sought to execute it by having the applicant committed to civil prison under Order 19 Rule 37. The applicant filed a chamber application under Order 19 Rule 26 and Rule 89 seeking stay of execution. The applicant had also filed a notice of motion within the same suit to set aside the exparte judgment. The court considered whether Rule 26, which permits stay where a suit is pending against a decree holder, applied to a notice of motion within the same suit rather than a separate cross-suit. After a short adjournment for counsel to consult, both parties consented to stay upon the applicant depositing the decretal sum in court.

Issues

  1. Whether Order 19 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules is applicable to an application for stay of execution where the applicant has filed a notice of motion to set aside an exparte judgment within the same suit rather than instituting a separate pending suit.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution granted by consent.
  • Applicant to deposit the decretal sum of Shs. 689,000/= in court within thirty (30) days from 26 August 1993.
  • Registrar (Civil) directed to fix a convenient hearing date for Notice of Motion to set aside the exparte judgment.
  • These orders supercede the orders of the Registrar made on 2nd August 1993.
  • Costs of today shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Order 19 Rule 26 — Requirements for Application
Order 19 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires for its application that there should be a pending suit in court against a holder of a decree, and that pending suit must have been instituted by the judgment debtor, meaning a separate substantive cross-suit to establish a right, not merely a notice of motion filed within the same suit seeking to set aside an exparte judgment.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Stay of Execution — Faulty Procedure
The High Court has inherent powers to entertain applications for stay of its orders even where the procedures adopted are faulty if the matter is urgent, and is not bound to strike out an application solely on procedural grounds where substantive justice requires consideration of the merits.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Iddi Halfarii v Hamisi Binti Athumani [1962] EA 781
  • Kanyara Vs. Ahamed, HCCS No. 38 of 1989
  • Salim v Boyd [1971] EA 550

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Engola v Acire (Civil Suit 370 of 1992) [1993] UGHC 53 (26 August 1993)
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.