Kampala Pharmaceutical Industries 1996 Ltd v Ushilano Gallibhai (Civil Application No. 39 of 1997)

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal granted a stay of execution pending appeal to a company whose properties had been attached in execution of a decree to which it was not a party, after its objector proceedings were dismissed by the High Court. The Court held that under Rule 75(4) leave to appeal need not be obtained before lodging a notice of appeal, and that a stranger to a decree who claims an interest in attached property may seek to stay its sale to preserve that property. Given the value and importance of the machinery, the respondent's absence abroad making damages unlikely, and the imminent sale, a stay was necessary so that a successful appeal would not be rendered nugatory.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending disposal of the applicant's appeal

Facts

The respondent sued Kampala Pharmaceutical Ltd in High Court Civil Suit No. 393 of 1993 and obtained a decree. A warrant of attachment was issued and, on 26/9/97, a court bailiff attached properties at Plot 444B Ntinda Industrial Area which the applicant, Kampala Pharmaceutical Industries 1996 Ltd, claimed were its own and in its possession. The properties, comprising machinery used in the applicant's pharmaceutical business and valued at around US$242,293, were advertised for sale. The applicant, not being a party to the decree, filed objector proceedings challenging the attachment. The Principal Judge heard the objection on 8/10/97 and dismissed it on 13/10/97. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 14/10/97 and this application for a stay on 15/10/97. The respondent had left Uganda and was living in Australia, making recovery of any damages unlikely. The attached properties were advertised for sale on 4/11/97.

Issues

1. Whether the application was incompetent for want of leave to appeal obtained before lodging the notice of appeal.
2. Whether a stranger to a decree may seek a stay of execution of that decree.
3. Whether the application was properly before the Court despite no prior stay application having been made to the High Court.
4. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• Sale of the properties attached in execution of the decree in High Court Civil Suit No. 393 of 1993 (advertised for 4/11/97) stayed pending disposal of the applicant's pending appeal.
• Costs of this application to abide the result of the pending appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Court of Appeal Rules r.5(2)(b)
• Court of Appeal Rules r.41(1)
• Court of Appeal Rules r.42(1)(2)
• Court of Appeal Rules r.43
• Court of Appeal Rules r.75(4)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.55
• Civil Procedure Rules O.XXXIX r.4(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.XLVIII r.1

Cases cited (3)

• J.W. Kazzora v Rukaba (Civil Application No. 4 of 1991)
• Lawrence Mussiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Buseriqye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
• J.W.R. Kazoora v M.L.S. Rugaba (Civil Application No. 5 of 1991)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Prof. Ddumba Ssentamu and Others v Prof. Elisam Magara (Miscellaneous Application No. 110 of 2018)

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