Kampala Bottlers Limited v Uganda Bottlers Limited (Civil Application No. 25 95)

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court held that an application for stay of execution pending appeal to it is governed by Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, which empowers the court to stay execution on such terms as it thinks fit, and not by O.39 r.4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules under which the trial judge had been pressed to act. There is no legal requirement that further security for costs be paid when the application is lodged; the mandatory security under Rule 104 relates to the costs of the appeal. Finding the applicant a successful company that would suffer substantial financial loss if execution proceeded, the court granted the stay pending determination of the appeal, with security for costs to be deposited at the bank.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending determination of the appeal, subject to deposit of security for costs.

Facts

The dispute in the High Court concerned ownership of certain industrial premises occupied by the applicant on 6th Street, Kampala (consolidated Civil Suits Nos. 435 of 1992 and 114 of 1992). The trial judge found for the respondent, ordered the applicant to vacate the premises in the respondent's favour, and directed the Chief Registrar of Titles to cancel the applicant's name from the register and substitute the respondent. The applicant filed a notice of appeal within 24 hours and applied to the trial judge for a stay pending appeal. The trial judge saw no likelihood of the appeal succeeding but granted a temporary 14-day stay to enable the applicant to seek a longer stay from the Supreme Court. The applicant's managing director deposed, unchallenged, that the applicant was a leading manufacturer of soft drinks with a sizeable workforce paying substantial taxes, which would suffer substantial financial and other losses if its operations were stopped by execution.

Issues

1. Whether an application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Supreme Court is governed by O.39 r.4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules or by the Rules of the Supreme Court.
2. Whether the applicant was required to furnish further security for costs at the time of lodging the application for stay.
3. Whether the applicant had shown grounds warranting a stay of execution pending the appeal.

Orders

• Application for stay of execution granted.
• Stay of execution to operate pending the determination of the appeal.
• Security for costs to be deposited at the bank forthwith.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Civil Procedure Rules O.39 r.4(3)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.5
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.104

Cases cited (1)

• Ryazze v Uusinge, Civil Application No. 18 of 1990

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