Luzige and 4 Others v Afriland Bank Uganda Limited (In liquidation ) (Miscellaneous Application 748 of 2022)

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 applicants sought a stay of execution of High Court taxation orders pending a civil appeal. The Court held that an applicant for a stay must establish a likelihood of success or a prima facie case, that irreparable damage would result or the appeal be rendered nugatory, and otherwise where the balance of convenience lies. The applicants merely regurgitated assertions of harm and nugatoriness without proof, failed to furnish a record or memorandum of appeal to show arguability, falsely claimed the respondent was a foreign company, and demonstrated no threat of execution. Having failed to establish the necessary grounds, the application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicants, advocates, claimed legal fees against the respondent bank arising from work including obtaining a banking licence. They obtained leave to tax an Advocate-Client bill of costs against the respondent. The respondent successfully appealed the Registrar's taxation ruling in Taxation Appeal No. 02 of 2022. The applicants filed a Notice of Appeal and subsequently Civil Appeal No. 343 of 2022 challenging the High Court decision. The respondent went into liquidation, with a liquidator appointed by the High Court. The liquidator indicated the applicants' claim for legal fees would not be considered in liquidation. The applicants sought a stay of execution, contending the appeal had high chances of success, that they would suffer irreparable harm and substantial loss, that the respondent was a foreign company that would leave the country, and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory. The respondent opposed, asserting the application was premature, speculative and an abuse of process, and that the matter concerned taxation proceedings rather than execution.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants established the conditions for grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.
2. Whether the applicants demonstrated a likelihood of success of the intended appeal, irreparable harm, or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory.

Orders

• This application is dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rule 6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rule 42
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 rule 43

Cases cited (2)

• [2013] UGSC 21
• Akankwasa Damian v Uganda (Constitutional Application Nos. 7 and 9 of 2011)

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