Wakilii

Kironde v Bank of Africa Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 795 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 352 · 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 judgment in civil suit, arising from underlying loan recovery proceedings
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent.

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 dismissed an application for stay of execution pending appeal of a money decree. The applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found no imminent threat of execution, no substantial loss that could not be remedied by damages or restitution, and no security deposited for due performance. The court held that execution of money decrees is not ordinarily stayed where the respondent is not impecunious and restitution is available if the appeal succeeds.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The applicant obtained a loan of UGX 880,000,000 from the respondent bank, secured by mortgages over the applicant's properties. Upon default, the respondent foreclosed and sold some mortgaged properties, then filed civil suit no. 0415 of 2014 to recover the outstanding balance of UGX 1,208,214,548. Judgment was entered for the respondent on 9 January 2023. The applicant filed a civil appeal (no. 0120 of 2023) and then this application for stay of execution. The respondent served a taxation hearing notice on 5 April 2024 and the applicant filed this stay application on 8 April 2024, arguing imminent threat of execution, substantial loss, and willingness to provide security. The respondent opposed, arguing failure to satisfy the statutory conditions for stay.

Issues

  1. Whether the execution of the decree in civil suit no. 0415 of 2014 should be stayed pending determination of the appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Mandatory Conditions Under Order 43 Rule 4(3) CPR
All conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules must be satisfied before execution can be stayed: the applicant must show that substantial loss may result unless the order is made, that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution
An order of stay will issue only if there is actual or presently threatened execution; there must be unequivocal evidence showing unconditional steps demonstrating a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution, such as extracting the decree, having a bill of costs taxed, applying for a warrant of execution, or issuing a notice to show cause why execution should not issue.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
For purposes of stay of execution, substantial loss must be of a nature which cannot be undone once inflicted; it is not enough to merely repeat the words of the code, the kind of loss must be specified with details given, and it must mean something in addition to and different from the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when deprived of property in consequence of losing a case.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Money Decrees
Execution of a money decree is ordinarily not stayed since satisfaction of a money decree does not amount to substantial loss or irreparable injury where the respondent is not impecunious, because the remedy of restitution is available to the applicant in the event the appeal is allowed.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs
Security for costs or due performance of the decree operates as an insurance cover meant to indemnify the judgment creditor in the event the appeal fails without recourse to vigorous processes of recovering such costs; a court can only dispense with the requirement of depositing security for costs in very exceptional circumstances.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (12)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa v Itobu Margret (HCMA No. 160 of 2022)
  • Ntege Mayambala v Christopher Mwanje (HCMA No. 72 of 1991)
  • Ssekikubo v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Formula Feeds Ltd v KCB Bank Ltd (HCMA No. 1647 of 2022)
  • Baguma Paul v Karuma Kagyina (HCMA No. 460 of 2020)
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Zaabwe (HCMA No. 19 of 2006)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co. SA (1995-1998) 1 EA 312
  • Bansidhav-vs- Pribku Dayal AIR 41 1954
  • Kisaalu Joseph v Nakintu May (Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2020)
  • Nkonge Rugadyain Shem Mpanga Mukasa v Kizza Clessy Barya (Miscellaneous Application No. 479 of 2021)
  • Wandera Micheal v Baguma Samalie (Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kironde v Bank of Africa Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 795 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 352 (2 December 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.