Wakilii

Gold Star Insurance Company Ltd v Ssemwemba Ronald and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 872 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 336 · 2022 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, arising from Civil Suit No. 25 of 2016
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending appeal, conditional upon deposit of security within 14 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 High Court granted the application for stay of execution pending appeal, finding that the applicant had satisfied the three conditions under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules: substantial loss would result from execution of a decree for UGX 100,000,000 plus costs; the application was filed without unreasonable delay following judgment; and the applicant demonstrated ability to deposit security for costs. The court ordered the applicant to deposit UGX 100,000,000 as security within 14 days.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending appeal, conditional upon deposit of security within 14 days

Facts

The first respondent, Ssemwemba Ronald, instituted Civil Suit No. 25 of 2016 in which the applicant, Gold Star Insurance Company Ltd, was joined as a third party. On 17 August 2020, the trial court found the applicant liable as third party and ordered it to pay UGX 100,000,000 as indemnity. On 28 August 2020, the applicant filed a notice of appeal. On 6 November 2020, the applicant filed this application seeking stay of execution of the decree pending determination of the appeal. The applicant contended that it was not liable to indemnify the second defendant because the insurance policy was a contractor's plant and machinery policy, not a comprehensive policy, and that the insured had defaulted on premium payments by the time of the accident. An interim stay was granted on 8 December 2020. The bill of costs had been taxed and allowed at UGX 12,974,100.

Issues

  1. Whether there is an arguable appeal.
  2. Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the application for stay is not granted.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution pending appeal granted.
  • Applicant to deposit UGX 100,000,000 as security for costs within 14 days from the date of the ruling.
  • Costs of this application to stay in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Order 43 Rule 4(3) CPR
An applicant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy three conditions: that substantial loss may result unless the order is made; that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and that security for costs has been given for due performance of the decree as may ultimately be binding.
Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal as Sufficient Ground
A notice of appeal is a sufficient expression of an intention to file an appeal and such action is sufficient to found the basis for grant of orders of stay in appropriate cases. An applicant need not wait until the appeal is lodged before seeking stay of execution.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Definition and Application
Substantial loss does not represent any particular amount or size and cannot be quantified by any particular mathematical formula. Rather it is a qualitative concept referring to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value as distinguished from a loss without value or a loss that is merely nominal.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

  • Nalwoga Gladys v EDCL Limited and George Ragui Kamoni (Miscellaneous Application No. 07 of 2013)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2003)
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina and Ssemakula Laurence (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Kampala Bottlers v Uganda Bottlers [1991] HLR 22
  • Ujagar Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EACA 266
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v East African Law Society and Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Andrew Kisawui v Dan Oundo Malingu (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 467 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and Ors v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 331

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gold Star Insurance Company Ltd v Ssemwemba Ronald and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 872 of 2020) [2022] UGHCCD 336 (4 May 2022)
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.