Wakilii

Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd v M/s Energo Project Corporation (H.C.C.S No.207 of 1993)

High Court · [1995] UGHC 32 · 1995 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending appeal to Supreme Court
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 court dismissed the application for stay of execution, holding that it was misconceived. There was no memorandum of appeal pending in the Supreme Court, only a notice of appeal, which did not constitute a pending appeal under Order 19 Rule 26. The application was also procedurally defective as it should have been brought by notice of motion in open court, not by chamber summons. The court found the appeal lacked bona fides and had slim chances of success, and the applicant would not suffer irreparable damage if execution proceeded.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The plaintiff/respondent had filed a civil suit against the defendant/applicant for special and general damages for breach of contract, claiming the applicant failed to pay for beans and maize supplied valued at 7 million shillings. The High Court pronounced judgment in favour of the plaintiff, awarding special damages of 7 million shillings and general damages of 2 million shillings plus interest. The defendant then applied by chamber summons for stay of execution pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. The defendant claimed the appeal was bona fide and likely to succeed, and that execution would cause irreparable loss. However, no memorandum of appeal had been filed in the Supreme Court at the time of the application, only a notice of appeal. The judgment was delivered on 16 August 1994, and by December 1995 the appeal had still not been filed.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution was properly brought under Order 19 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether there was a pending appeal in the Supreme Court justifying a stay of execution.
  3. Whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant a stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for Stay Pending Appeal
A notice of appeal lodged in the Supreme Court does not amount to a pending appeal for purposes of an application for stay of execution; a memorandum of appeal must be filed before an appeal can be considered pending.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Proper Procedure and Forum
An application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Supreme Court should be brought by notice of motion in open court under section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act, not by chamber summons under Order 19 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which applies only where a suit is pending against the decree holder.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
The court will grant a stay of execution pending appeal only if satisfied that the appeal is bona fide, has reasonable prospects of success, execution would render the appeal nugatory, and the applicant is prepared to meet conditions similar to those under Order 39 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Irreparable Damage
The fact that a decretal sum carries interest is not a sufficient ground for stay of execution where there is no pending appeal and the applicant will not suffer irreparable damage if execution proceeds.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • George Muhutu v Bilasiyo Mpereng
  • Kampala City Council v National Pharmacy (No. 13 of 1979)
  • Somali Democratic Republic v Ancop (Civil Application No. 11 of 1988)
  • Wilson vs. Church No. 2 of 1879 12 ch LR 454
  • Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busigye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Ujar Singh vs. Rund Coffee Estate 1966 EAP 263
  • Kaggwa v Oliva Kaggwa (Administration Cause No. 21 of 1972)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd v M_s Energo Project Corporation (H.C.C.S No.207 of 1993) [1995] UGHC 32 (6 December 1995)
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.