Wakilii

Karuhanga v Tulihamu Budongo Sacco (Miscellaneous Application 108 of 2022)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 183 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from High Court judgment in Civil Suit No. 0029 of 2014
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; respondent entitled to proceed with execution of the 2014 judgment and decree

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

Application for stay of execution pending appeal dismissed. Applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions under Order 43 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, particularly failing to demonstrate substantial loss beyond ordinary litigation loss, bringing the application eight years after the consent judgment with unreasonable delay, and providing no security for the decree. The application was intended to delay the respondent's enjoyment of the fruits of judgment.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; respondent entitled to proceed with execution of the 2014 judgment and decree

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant in Civil Suit No. 0029 of 2014 for breach of contract and recovery of money. During trial, the parties entered a consent judgment on 19 November 2014 whereby the applicant agreed to pay certain sums. The remaining issues proceeded to trial, resulting in a final judgment against the applicant for UGX 94,000,000 principal, UGX 60,000,000 general damages, UGX 40,000,000 punitive damages, 15% interest per annum from filing, and costs. The applicant failed to pay the consent judgment amount. Eight years later, in 2022, after the respondent commenced execution and applied for taxation of costs, the applicant filed a notice of appeal and this application seeking stay of execution pending appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has sufficient grounds for a stay of execution?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions under Order 43 rule 4 — Four mandatory requirements
For a stay of execution pending appeal to be granted under Order 43 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an applicant must satisfy four conditions: (1) lodging a notice of appeal; (2) demonstrating that substantial loss may result unless the stay is granted; (3) showing the application was made without unreasonable delay; and (4) providing security for due performance of the decree as may ultimately be binding.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Definition and proof required
The words 'substantial loss' in Order 43 rule 4 cannot mean the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when deprived of property in consequence of losing the case. Substantial loss must mean something in addition to and different from ordinary litigation loss. An applicant must go beyond vague and general assertions and demonstrate a peculiar loss over and above the ordinary deprivation resulting from litigation.
Stay of Execution — Delay — Eight years constitutes unreasonable delay
Where a consent judgment was entered in November 2014 and an application for stay of execution pending appeal was brought in 2022, an eight-year delay in bringing the application constitutes unreasonable delay and the applicant is caught by laches.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Coget Cotton Co. S.A (1995-1998) EA 312
  • Muhorro Town Council v Rutalihamu Jacob (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Karuhanga v Tulihamu Budongo Sacco (Miscellaneous Application 108 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 183 (29 February 2024)
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.