Heywood Group Ltd and Another v Kaffika Animal Feeds Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 972 of 2025)
Observed later treatment
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
An application for interim stay of execution is incompetent where the notice of appeal upon which it is founded is defective for lack of endorsement by the Registrar. A competent notice of appeal lodged with the Registrar of the High Court is a primary precondition for an interim stay application under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Without a competent notice of appeal, the foundation for the interim stay application ceases to exist and the court cannot proceed to consider other grounds.
Outcome
Application struck out as incompetent due to defective notice of appeal
Facts
The respondent obtained judgment in Civil Suit No. 0032/2021 against the applicants for Ugx 69,326,000 as outstanding contractual sum for unpaid poultry feeds, plus interest at 20% per annum, general damages of Ugx 20,000,000, interest at court rate on general damages, and costs. After taxation of costs at Ugx 9,486,000, the total decree sum became Ugx 169,338,000. The respondent commenced execution proceedings and advertised the applicants' property for sale on 30 April 2025. The applicants filed a substantive application for stay of execution (Miscellaneous Application No. 970/2025) and this interim application for stay pending hearing of the substantive application. The applicants attached a notice of appeal but it was not endorsed by the Registrar of the High Court or Court of Appeal.
Issues
- Whether this application raises sufficient grounds for an order of interim stay of execution?
Orders
- Application for interim order of stay struck out.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
Cases cited (3)
- Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Businge (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
- Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
- Osman Kassim Ramthan v Century Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 035 of 2019)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.