Nzeyi v Menna (Civil Application 544 of 2024)
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
Hearing an application for a stay of execution pending appeal, the single Justice restated the established conditions: a prima facie case or likelihood of success, irreparable damage or the appeal being rendered nugatory, and that the application was brought without delay, failing which the court weighs the balance of convenience. The court accepted that the applicant had shown a prima facie case but held that payment of a judgment sum is not itself irreparable loss, that the respondent decree-holder could refund the money if the appeal succeeded, and that the applicant retained control of the company and the shares. Having found no irreparable damage, the court held the balance of convenience favoured the decree-holder and dismissed the application with costs.
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed; respondent free to execute the decree
Facts
The respondent had sold all his shares in Innscor Uganda Limited to the applicant for US$450,000, of which only part was paid. The respondent, having relocated to the United States, sued for the balance in HCCS No. 288 of 2011 and obtained judgment for US$230,000 plus costs. The applicant lodged an appeal and sought a stay of execution, the High Court having dismissed a like application on 9 September 2024. The applicant argued that the respondent was domiciled abroad with no assets in Uganda, so the decretal sum could not be recovered if the appeal succeeded, that he had received no benefit from the untransferred shares, and that execution would enable tax evasion. The respondent contended that the appeal was frivolous, that he held a decree in his favour, and that nothing suggested he could not refund the money if the appeal succeeded.
Issues
- Whether the applicant adduced sufficient evidence to justify the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal.
Orders
- The application for a stay of execution of the decree in HCCS No. 288 of 2011 is declined.
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) r.2
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) r.6(2)(b)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) r.42(2)
- Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) r.76
Cases cited (4)
- Laurence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
- China Henan International Cooperation Ltd v Justus Kyabahwa (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 100 of 2021)
- Hon Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
- Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd & Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) (2004) 2 EA 337
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.