Wakilii

Equity Bank u Ltd v WERE (Miscellaneous Application No.604 of 2013)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 28 · 2014 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending appeal; applicant ordered to file proper appeal and furnish security

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that a properly filed notice of appeal is sufficient expression of intention to appeal and can ground an application for stay of execution even where a memorandum of appeal has not yet been filed. Where an applicant proves on the balance of probabilities that certified proceedings were requested from the lower court but not availed, this constitutes sufficient cause for stay. Security for costs under Order 43 rule 4(3) CPR is directory, not mandatory. Application granted with security to be furnished.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending appeal; applicant ordered to file proper appeal and furnish security

Facts

Equity Bank Uganda Limited obtained a decree against Nicholas Were in Civil Suit No. 118 of 2010 at the Chief Magistrate's Court, Entebbe. The bank applied for stay of execution pending appeal. The applicant had filed a notice of appeal dated 12 December 2013 but had not yet filed a memorandum of appeal. The applicant provided evidence by way of letters dated 29 January 2014 and 19 November 2013 requesting certified proceedings from the lower court, which had not been availed. The respondent argued that the application should fail because no memorandum of appeal had been filed and no security for costs had been furnished. Evidence showed that the respondent had taxed his bill of costs and a taxation ruling was scheduled for 13 February 2014.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution of the decree entered in Entebbe Civil Suit No. 118 of 2010 should be granted pending hearing of the appeal.
  2. Whether a notice of appeal is sufficient to ground an application for stay of execution in the absence of a filed memorandum of appeal.
  3. Whether security for costs is a condition precedent to granting a stay of execution.

Orders

  • Execution of the decree entered in Entebbe Civil Suit No. 118 of 2010 against the applicant stayed pending hearing of the appeal.
  • The applicant shall file a proper appeal before court.
  • The applicant shall furnish court with security.
  • Costs of this application to be in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal as Sufficient Basis
A properly filed notice of appeal constitutes a sufficient expression of intention to file an appeal and is sufficient to found the basis for grant of orders of stay of execution in appropriate cases, even where a memorandum of appeal has not yet been filed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Sufficient Cause — Non-Availability of Certified Proceedings
Where an applicant proves on the balance of probabilities that certified copies of the record of proceedings were requested from the lower court to enable filing of a memorandum of appeal but have not been availed, this constitutes 'sufficient cause' under Order 43 rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules for the grant of a stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Directory Requirement
The requirement under Order 43 rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules that security be given by an applicant for stay of execution is directory, not mandatory. The word 'shall' in Order 43 rule 4(3) is to be interpreted as directory, with a court's obligation to observe the proviso being dependent on the circumstances of each case. Security for costs is not a condition precedent to the grant of a stay of execution.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority & Another v Kyotera Victoria Fishnet Co Ltd & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 362 of 2012)
  • Alcon International Ltd vs. Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v The East African Law Society & Another (EACJ Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Imperial Royale Hotel Ltd & 2 Others v Ochan Daniel (Miscellaneous Application No. 111 of 2012)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Equity Bank u Ltd v WERE (Miscellaneous Application No.604 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 28 (18 February 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.