Wakilii

Ndawula v Hiraa Traders (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 210 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCEBD 2 · 2016 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of judgment and decree pending appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditional on deposit of UGX 143,000,000 within two weeks

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 pending appeal on condition that the applicant deposit UGX 143,000,000 in court as security within two weeks. The court held that requiring the entire decretal sum would be unfair where the applicant resides within jurisdiction and an appeal may succeed, but the admitted sum of UGX 143,000,000 was reasonable security.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditional on deposit of UGX 143,000,000 within two weeks

Facts

The applicant sought a stay of execution of a judgment and decree arising from Civil Suit No. 052 of 2012 pending disposal of his appeal filed on 9 November 2015. The respondent did not object to the application provided that UGX 143,000,000 (the sum admitted by the applicant to be due) be deposited in court. The applicant's counsel sought to rely on authority suggesting only 30% of the decretal sum need be deposited. The total decretal sum was UGX 243,000,000, of which the applicant admitted owing UGX 143,000,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution of judgment and decree pending appeal should be granted.
  2. What amount, if any, should be deposited in court as security for due performance of the decree.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution of the decree and judgment allowed on condition that the applicant pays security for due performance of the decree.
  • Applicant to deposit UGX 143,000,000 in court as security for due performance of the decree within two weeks from the date of this ruling.
  • Costs of the application granted to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Reasonableness of Amount Required
On an application for stay of execution pending appeal, it would be unfair to order the applicant to pay the whole decretal sum where an appeal may succeed and the applicant resides within jurisdiction; the court should decide what is reasonable, otherwise requiring the entire amount would do away with the need for the appeal.
Stay of Execution — Security for Costs — Admitted Liability
Where an applicant for stay of execution has admitted liability for a portion of the decretal sum, it is reasonable to require deposit of that admitted sum as security for due performance of the decree while allowing the applicant to appeal against the remainder of the judgment.

Cases cited (1)

  • Margaret Kato v Nuulu Nalwoga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ndawula v Hiraa Traders (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 210 of 2016) [2016] UGHCEBD 2 (13 April 2016)
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.