Wakilii

Formula Feeds Limited and Others v KCB Bank Uganda Limited (Civil Application No. 9 of 2023)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 79 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Supreme Court for an interim order staying execution pending the hearing of a substantive stay application
Decision
Interim order granted staying execution until determination of the substantive stay application (SC Civil Application No. 0007 of 2023)

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

On a preliminary objection that the application should first have been filed in the Court of Appeal under Rule 41(1), the single Justice held that the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal exercise concurrent jurisdiction over stay applications; where exceptional circumstances exist an application may be brought directly in the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal having rejected the application through ECCMIS for re-direction to the court seized of the appeal, such exceptional circumstances existed and the objection was overruled. On the merits, the applicants had filed a competent notice of appeal, a pending substantive stay application, and faced a serious threat of execution, satisfying the three conditions for an interim order. The interim stay was accordingly granted.

Outcome

Interim order granted staying execution until determination of the substantive stay application (SC Civil Application No. 0007 of 2023)

Facts

On 10 February 2016 the High Court (Commercial Division) delivered judgment in Civil Suit No. 289 of 2014 in favour of the respondent. The applicants' appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2016) was dismissed with costs on 8 July 2020. The applicants then appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2020), which remains pending. The respondent filed applications to execute the High Court decree, and the applicants filed both a substantive application for stay of execution (SC Civil Application No. 0007 of 2023) and the present application for an interim stay. The respondent had filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 323 of 2023 seeking execution by committal of the individual applicants to civil prison, fixed for hearing on 17 March 2023, presenting a serious and imminent threat of execution before the substantive application could be heard.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for an interim stay of execution was properly before the Supreme Court, given Rule 41(1) requiring that such applications be made to the Court of Appeal first.
  2. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order staying execution.

Orders

  • An interim order is granted staying execution of the decree of the High Court (Commercial Division) in Civil Suit No. 289 of 2014 until the determination of Supreme Court Civil Application No. 0007 of 2023.
  • The Registrar of the court is directed to fix Supreme Court Civil Application No. 0007 of 2023 on 28 March 2023, together with S.C.C.A No. 13 of 2020, which has already been cause-listed.
  • Costs shall abide the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Concurrent Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal
The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have concurrent jurisdiction in applications for stay of execution; under Rule 41(1) such applications should first be filed in the Court of Appeal, but where exceptional circumstances exist they may be filed directly in the Supreme Court.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Exceptional Circumstances Justifying Direct Application
Where the Court of Appeal is not the executing court and has rejected the application for re-direction to the court before which the appeal is pending, an exceptional circumstance exists permitting the stay application to be brought directly in the Supreme Court.
Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Conditions for Grant
An applicant seeking an interim order of stay of execution must satisfy three conditions: a competent notice of appeal has been filed, a substantive application is pending, and there is a serious threat of execution before the hearing of the substantive application.
Civil Procedure — Interim Stay — Scope of Inquiry
On an application for an interim stay it suffices to show a pending substantive application and a serious threat of execution before its hearing; the court need not pre-empt consideration of matters relevant to deciding the substantive application.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.41(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.41(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.42(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.43
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order XLVIII r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order XL r.4(3)

Cases cited (11)

  • Horizon Coaches Ltd v Pan African Insurance Company (Civil Application No. 20 of 2002)
  • Yakobo Senkungu and others v Cerencio Mukasa (Civil Application No. 5 of 2013)
  • Giuliano Gargio v Claudio Casadio (Civil Application No. 2 of 2013)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Limited v Tajdin Hussein & Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
  • Zubeda Mohamed & Anor v Laila Kaka Walia & Anor (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
  • Global Capital Save 2004 Ltd and another v Alice Okiror and another (Civil Application No. 57 of 2021)
  • Attorney General v Eddie Kwizera (Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2020)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • China Henan International Cooperation Group Co. Ltd v Justus Kyabahwa (Civil Application No. 30 of 2021)
  • Hon. Ssekikuubo & Ors v Attorney General & Ors (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Formula Feeds Limited and Others v KCB Bank Uganda Limited (Civil Application No. 9 of 2023) [2023] UGSC 79 (14 March 2023)
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.