Wakilii

Mutabazi and Others v Horizon Coaches Ltd (MISC. APPL. NOS. 1293 AND 1653 OF 2000; MISC. APPL. NOS. 1293 AND 1653 OF 2000)

High Court · [2001] UGHC 126 · 2001 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 decree
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

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 dismissed. Court held that provision of security is a mandatory condition precedent under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules before stay of execution can be granted. The applicant failed to provide security and failed to demonstrate that substantial loss would be suffered if execution proceeded. The court found that stating willingness to provide security was insufficient; security must be actually provided and stated in the application and affidavit.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicants sought a stay of execution of a decree in High Court Civil Suit No. 1087 of 1997 pending the hearing and disposal of an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. The application was brought under Section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 48 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was supported by two affidavits from Geoffrey Nangumya, the corporation secretary of the applicant company. The respondent opposed the application and submitted that if a stay were granted, security for costs in the form of cash or bank draft should be deposited with the Registrar. At the hearing, counsel for the applicant informed the court that the applicant was willing to provide security, but no security had actually been provided before or at the time of the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the mandatory conditions for a stay of execution under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security as Mandatory Condition Precedent
Under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, provision of security is a mandatory condition precedent before a stay of execution can be granted. It is not sufficient for an applicant to express willingness to provide security; the security must be actually given and stated in the application and affidavit in support.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss Must Be Demonstrated
An applicant for stay of execution must demonstrate how substantial loss will be occasioned if execution proceeds. Vague assertions of 'great inconvenience and financial embarrassment' without particulars are insufficient to satisfy the requirement under Order 39 Rule 3 that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mutabazi and Others v Horizon Coaches Ltd (MISC. APPL. NOS. 1293 AND 1653 OF 2000; MISC. APPL. NOS. 1293 AND 1653 OF 2000) [2001] UGHC 126 (2 February 2001)
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.