Wakilii

International Projects Limited and Another v Zinunula Coffee Company Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1588 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 146 · 2021 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal, arising from Civil Suit No. 1053 of 2001
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditional upon payment of 30% of the decretal sum as security

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, but only subject to payment of 30% of the decretal sum as security. The court held that while the application was filed without undue delay and a notice of appeal was properly lodged, the applicants failed to demonstrate that there was no possibility of recovering money paid as security from the respondent. The court exercised its discretion under Order 43 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to require security for costs, notwithstanding that no costs were awarded in the underlying suit.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditional upon payment of 30% of the decretal sum as security

Facts

The applicants sought a stay of execution of orders made on 28 August 2021 in a ruling on a preliminary objection that disposed of Civil Suit No. 1053 of 2001. The ruling ordered the applicants to pay a decretal sum within 60 days. The applicants filed a notice of appeal on 31 August 2021 and this application for stay on 8 September 2021. The underlying dispute concerned a judgment debt of UGX 181,677,000 awarded on 1 February 2001 for breach of contract, which the first applicant had failed to honour for two decades. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicants had not furnished security and had participated in processes to deny liability.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants would suffer substantial loss if the application for stay of execution was denied.
  2. Whether the application was brought without unreasonable delay.
  3. Whether security should be furnished by the applicants for due performance of the decree.
  4. Whether there was likelihood of success in the pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution granted subject to payment of 30% of the decretal sum.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements under Order 43 rule 4(3) CPR
An applicant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy the court that there is likelihood of substantial loss if the order is not made, that the application was made without unreasonable delay, and that provision has been made for security for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
The words 'substantial loss' in the context of stay of execution cannot mean the ordinary loss which every judgment debtor suffers when he loses his case and is deprived of property in consequence, since that is an element which must occur in every case. Such loss must mean something in addition to and different from that.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Discretion of Court
The requirement to furnish security for due performance of a decree under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules is a matter within the discretion of the court, exercisable whether or not costs were awarded in the underlying suit. An applicant must demonstrate that there is no possibility of recovering money paid as security from the respondent should the appeal succeed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Timeliness
An application for stay of execution must be made before the expiration of the time allowed for appealing against the decree. Where a notice of appeal is filed within 30 days of the decree as required by section 79(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the application for stay follows shortly thereafter, the application is made without undue delay.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Asaba George v Kasangaki Simon (Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2020)
  • Kawanga John B. v Namyalo (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Commissioner Customs URA v Kayumba Emile Ogane T/A ETS OGANE Company (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2014)
  • NEC v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

International_Projects_Limited_and_Another_v_Zinunula_Coffee_Company_Limited_(Civil_Miscellaneous_Application_No._1588_of_2021)_[2021]_UGHCLD_146_(21_October_2021)
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.