Wakilii

International Credit Bank (In Liquidation) v Tropical Commodities Suppliers Limited and 2 Others (Civil Appeal 24 of 2004)

Court of Appeal · [2007] UGCA 75 · 2007 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a ruling of the Commercial Division of the High Court on conditions for a stay of execution pending appeal
Decision
Appeal allowed; order substituted requiring respondents to deposit UGX 113,000,000 (or equivalent property) as security for due performance to sustain the stay of execution

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 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.

Good law Followed in 2 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 13 citing cases on record, 9 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

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in ordering only security for costs as a condition for a stay of execution pending appeal from the High Court. Since rule 105 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996 already requires compulsory payment of security for costs on filing an appeal, the proper condition under Order 39 rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules is security for the due performance of the decree, not a duplicate order for security for costs. The Court substituted the order, directing the respondents to deposit UGX 113,000,000 (or property of equivalent value) as security for due performance of the High Court decree.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; order substituted requiring respondents to deposit UGX 113,000,000 (or equivalent property) as security for due performance to sustain the stay of execution

Facts

The High Court (Commercial Division) ordered a stay of execution of the decree it had made in HCCS No. 132 of 1998, but declined to require the applicants to provide security for the due performance of the decree. Instead, it ordered the respondent to deposit UGX 20,000,000 as security for costs. The appellant bank (in liquidation) contended that it is not a requirement of law or practice for an appellant to deposit security for costs before a stay is granted, particularly as it had already paid the compulsory UGX 200,000 security for costs on filing the appeal under the Court of Appeal Rules. The decree against the respondent then stood at about UGX 137,000,000. Both parties agreed the trial judge should have ordered security for due performance of the decree rather than security for costs, leaving the quantum to be determined.

Issues

  1. Whether an applicant for a stay of execution on appeal from the High Court must deposit security for due performance of the decree under Order 39 rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules rather than mere security for costs.
  2. What quantum of security for due performance ought to be deposited as a condition for sustaining the stay of execution.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Respondents to deposit UGX 113,000,000 or other valuable property of that value within fourteen days from the date of judgment as security for due performance of the decree in HCCS No. 132 of 1998, as a condition for sustaining the stay of execution.
  • Appellant granted the costs of the application in the High Court.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Security for Due Performance versus Security for Costs
On an application for stay of execution of a High Court decree pending appeal, the proper condition under Order 39 rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules is the provision of security for the due performance of the decree, not merely security for costs.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Security for Costs — Effect of Rule 105 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996
Because rule 105 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1996 makes payment of security for costs compulsory on filing an appeal, an appellant cannot be required to pay security for costs a second time as a condition for a stay of execution; the earlier Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authorities on this point were decided before that rule was enacted.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Quantum and Form of Security
The quantum of security for due performance should reflect the decretal amount net of sums already deposited and paid, and the security need not be in cash but may take the form of a guarantee from a credible financial institution or a deposit of valuable land title or property of equivalent value.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kampala Bottlers Case
  • Lawrence Musitwa Kyaze Case
  • Lusejjere Case

Cases citing this judgment (12)

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.

International Credit Bank (In Liquidation) v Tropical Commodities Suppliers Limited and 2 Others (Civil Appeal 24 of 2004) [2007] UGCA 75 (27 August 2007)
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.