Wakilii

Okumu and 2 Others v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 60 of 2021)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 182 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree and orders pending appeal to Supreme Court and Court of Appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending determination of appeals before the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal

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 stay of execution of the decree and orders in HCCS No. 49 of 2014 pending appeals in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. The court held that the applicants demonstrated pending appeals with arguable grounds, a serious threat of execution that would occasion substantial loss exceeding hardship to the respondent, and had deposited security of UGX 30,000,000 sufficient for the purposes of the stay.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending determination of appeals before the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal

Facts

Eight applicants initially filed an application for stay of execution of a decree in HCCS No. 49 of 2014, but five withdrew, leaving three applicants. The High Court had entered judgment in favour of the respondent (Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited) in HCCS No. 49 of 2014, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2017. The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2020. The taxing officer awarded costs of UGX 1,424,727,300 to the respondent, and when the applicants appealed the taxation, the trial Judge upheld the award. The applicants appealed the taxation ruling to the Court of Appeal vide Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2020. The respondent issued a notice to show cause why execution should not issue for the taxed costs. The applicants sought stay of execution pending both appeals, arguing they would suffer irreparable harm if the decree was executed before the appeals were determined. The respondent opposed, arguing the appeals lacked merit and the applicants had no known assets from which the respondent could recover costs if the appeals failed.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises sufficient grounds for stay of execution pending determination of Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2020 and Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2020?

Orders

  • An order doth issue staying execution of the decree and orders in HCCS No. 49 of 2014 pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2020 by the Supreme Court.
  • An order doth issue staying execution of the decree and orders in HCCS No. 49 of 2014 pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2019 by the Court of Appeal.
  • The costs of the two applications shall abide the outcome of the respective appeals.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Discretion of Court
The power to grant or refuse an order for stay of execution sought by a person against whom a decree or order was passed is discretionary, and the court exercises such discretion by considering whether the applicant has shown a pending appeal with a likelihood of success, a serious and imminent threat of execution that would inflict substantial loss or render the appeal nugatory, absence of unreasonable delay, and willingness to provide security for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success
A trial court assessing whether an appeal has a likelihood of success must be satisfied that the prospects of success are not remote but that there is a realistic chance of succeeding, the case is arguable on appeal, and there is a sound, rational basis founded on the facts and the law justifying the conclusion that the appellate court will differ from the court whose judgment has been appealed against. The trial court must not pre-judge the appeal or constitute itself as the court on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Frivolous Appeals
An appeal will be considered frivolous if prima facie the grounds intended to be raised are without any reasonable basis in law or equity and cannot be supported by a good faith argument, or if there is strong evidence showing that the appeal has no merit or was filed for delay or not in good faith.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss is a qualitative concept and refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value as distinguished from a loss without value or a loss that is merely nominal. Determination of whether a certain loss is substantial is to be assessed by the context of each case and must be loss that is not contemplated by the parties. The applicant must provide empirical or documentary evidence to support contentions of substantial loss, not mere assertions.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs
For an order of stay of execution to issue, the applicant must show that either they have deposited or they are ready and willing to deposit security for due performance of the decree or order that may ultimately be made by the court. Where the applicant has already deposited security in intertwined related cases between the same parties, such security may suffice to meet the ends of justice without requiring further deposit.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (10)

  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo & 3 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Junaco (T) Limited & 2 Others v DFCU Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 27 of 2003)
  • Nesco Services Limited v CM Construction (EA) Limited [2019] eKLR
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & 2 Ors v International Credit Bank Ltd (in liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 379 of 2003)
  • Augustine Kasozi v Arvind Patel (Miscellaneous Application No. 503 of 2021)
  • Trans track Ltd v Damco Logistics (Miscellaneous Application No. 608 of 2012)
  • Samvir Trustee Limited v Guardian Bank Limited Nairobi (Milimani) HCCC 795 of 1997, cited with approval in Nesco Services Limited v CM Construction (EA) Limited [2019] eKLR
  • Kisaalu Joseph & Others v Nakitto Mayi & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okumu and 2 Others v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 60 of 2021) [2024] UGHCCD 182 (16 October 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.