Wakilii

Kasozi v Patel (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 503 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 122 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of ruling pending determination of appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted on condition of payment of security pending determination of appeal

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

Held that the application for stay of execution pending appeal is granted. The applicant satisfied the three criteria from Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Busingye: substantial loss (loss of money without hearing of his defence constitutes substantial loss of real worth in context), no unreasonable delay (application filed within reasonable time of ruling and notice to show cause), and security (applicant expressed willingness to comply). The court applied a qualitative rather than mathematical test for substantial loss. Stay granted on condition of payment of 30% security within one month.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted on condition of payment of security pending determination of appeal

Facts

The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 422 of 2019 against the applicant for recovery of UGX 947,000,000 arising from a loan facility. The applicant filed Misc. Application No. 910 of 2019 seeking dismissal of the main suit on grounds of res judicata and lack of effective service. The court ruled for the respondent in Misc. Application No. 910 of 2019 and entered default judgment in the respondent's favour. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal on 12 November 2020 challenging that ruling. On 18 March 2021, a notice to show cause why execution should not issue was served on the applicant. The applicant then filed the present application on 8 April 2021 seeking stay of execution pending determination of his appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application discloses grounds for stay of execution.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution granted on conditions stated.
  • Applicant ordered to pay security of Uganda Shillings Two Hundred Eighty-Four Million One Hundred Thousand Only (UGX 284,100,000/-) representing 30% of the amount in issue.
  • Security to be paid via cash or bank guarantee from a reputable bank.
  • Security to be deposited within one month from date of delivery of ruling.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
An application for stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy three conditions: that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made; that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and that security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Qualitative Test
Substantial loss is a qualitative concept that refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value, as distinguished from a loss without value or a loss that is merely nominal. It need not be determined by a mathematical formula whose computation yields any particular amount. Substantial loss in the context of an applicant's case must be loss that is not contemplated by the parties.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Loss of Money Without Hearing Defence
Where an applicant's defence was never on the record following dismissal of his preliminary objection and entry of default judgment, loss of money in the absence of hearing of his defence constitutes substantial loss in the context of an application for stay of execution pending appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security — Nature and Scope
The security required under Order 43 Rule 4(3)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules is not limited to security of costs but covers security for the entire decretal sum. A court may require an applicant to deposit a percentage of the amount in issue as security via cash or bank guarantee from a reputable bank.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kyazze v Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Transtrack Ltd v Damco Logistics (U) Ltd (Misc. Application No. 608 of 2012)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (Misc. Application No. 379 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasozi v Patel (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 503 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 122 (30 November 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.