Wakilii

National Water & Sewerage Corporation v Auma Betty Okullu (Miscellaneous Application 178 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1348 · 2024 Application Granted (Conditional) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditional upon deposit of taxed costs and bank guarantee of UGX 120,000,000 within 30 days

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 granted the application for stay of execution of a UGX 120,000,000 damages decree pending appeal, finding that the applicant had satisfied most essential conditions. Although the applicant failed to prove substantial loss and imminent threat of execution, the court imposed strict conditions requiring deposit of taxed costs and a bank guarantee of UGX 120,000,000 within 30 days to balance justice and protect both parties' rights.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditional upon deposit of taxed costs and bank guarantee of UGX 120,000,000 within 30 days

Facts

The respondent had sued the applicant (National Water & Sewerage Corporation) in Civil Suit No. 58 of 2015 for damages arising from the death of her son Bosco Atube, a former employee who died in a cesspool tank while attempting to unblock it. The respondent alleged negligence on the part of the applicant. The trial judge awarded UGX 120,000,000 as general damages in favour of the respondent. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal challenging the finding of negligence and the quantum of damages. The respondent's counsel issued a demand notice for payment of the decretal sum. The applicant then brought this application seeking to stay execution of the decree pending the determination of the appeal, offering to provide security for due performance of the decree.

Issues

  1. Whether an order staying execution of the decree in H.C.C.S No. 58 of 2015 should issue in favour of the applicant.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution granted on conditions.
  • Applicant directed to deposit the taxed costs in the main suit on the Jinja High Court Account.
  • Applicant directed to file in Court a Bank Guarantee to the tune of UGX 120,000,000 with the Deputy Registrar Jinja High Court.
  • Above conditions to be complied with within 30 days of reading this Ruling as a pre-condition of allowing the order sought.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Substantial Loss
An applicant for stay of execution must go beyond vague and general assertions of substantial loss and lay the basis upon which the court can make a finding that substantial loss will result; substantial loss must mean something in addition to and different from the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when losing a case and being deprived of property in consequence.
Stay of Execution — Threat of Execution — Demand Letter
A letter of demand alone does not constitute an imminent threat of execution for purposes of granting a stay of execution; there must be evidence of actual steps taken towards execution such as a filed bill of costs, application for warrant of execution, or notice to show cause why execution should not issue.
Stay of Execution — Timing — Application Before Execution Commenced
Given the busy schedule of courts, it is no longer prudent for a party to wait until execution has commenced before seeking a stay of execution; an application for stay may be brought before execution proceedings begin to prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Conditions
Where an applicant for stay of execution is a state agency unlikely to wind up and demonstrates willingness to provide security, the court may grant a conditional stay requiring the applicant to deposit security by way of bank guarantee; in the case of a money decree, security denotes depositing the disputed amount.
Stay of Execution — Discretionary Conditions — Balance of Interests
A court may grant a stay of execution even where not all conditions are satisfied, provided the applicant meets most essential conditions and the court imposes appropriate conditions to balance the interests of both parties and ensure justice; the decision to order security for due performance must be made in consonance with the probability of success of the appeal and circumstances of each case.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (26)

  • Tropical Bank Ltd v Jennifer Musoke and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 278 of 2024)
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • SBI International Limited v COF International Company Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 183 of 2018)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Abid Alam v Windriver Logistics Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 219 of 2021)
  • Hansa Industries Ltd v Tadjir Hussein and 2 Others (Supreme Court Appeal No. 19 of 2018)
  • Nalwanga v Eden Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2017)
  • Mugene vs Akankwasa [2008] HCB 160
  • Membe vs Mayoga [2009] HCB 82
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda v Atyaba Agencies (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2004)
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 331
  • Pan African Insurance Co Ltd v International Air Transport (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)
  • Ejulu Martin v Itobu Margaret (Miscellaneous Application No. 0160 of 2022)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v National Security Fund (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 43 of 2023)
  • Steel Rolling Mills Ltd & Anor vs Gestation Economique Des Mission Catholic & Ano'r
  • Bashidar vs. Pribku Dyal Air 41 1954
  • Zaveru v Lakhani Brothers Ltd [1959] EA 789
  • Sewankambo Dickson v Ziwa Abby (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 178 of 2005)
  • Ujagar Singh vs Runda Coffee Estates Ltd.
  • Juma Sewaalinte v Victoria Kayizzi (Court of Appeal Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 237 of 2023)
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Twongeirwe Peter v Muhumuza Peter (Miscellaneous Application No. 0681 of 2021)
  • Amuanaun Sam v Opolot David (Miscellaneous Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Musiitwa v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

National Water & Sewerage Corporation v Auma Betty Okullu (Miscellaneous Application 178 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1348 (12 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.