Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Civil Application 35 of 2019)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court granted an interim order of stay of execution. Applying the conditions for an interim stay — a competent notice of appeal on record, a pending substantive application, and an existing threat of execution — it found all satisfied. An interim order is a 'first aid intervention' to preserve the status quo pending the substantive application, and need not pre-empt matters reserved for that hearing. The Court rejected the respondent's argument that taxation of costs was not a threat of execution: execution is a process, not an event, and taxation of costs is part of that process, constituting an imminent threat. The application was granted with costs in the cause.

Outcome

Interim order of stay of execution granted pending determination of the substantive application by the full Court

Facts

The applicant and his brother had sued the respondent company seeking damages for breach of an agency agreement, special damages, loss of business and profits, interest and costs. The claim arose from a 1990 (pleaded as 1999) agency agreement under which a partnership of brothers trading as Bombo Wholesalers was appointed to distribute the respondent's products in specified areas. The applicant alleged the respondent, in 2005, wrongfully created competing agencies in the demarcated areas and terminated the agency without notice, causing loss. The High Court dismissed the claim save for an award of general damages of UGX 5,000,000 plus 50% of taxed costs, and the appeal to the Court of Appeal was unsuccessful. The applicant filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and a substantive application for stay of execution, then brought this application for an interim stay, asserting a serious and imminent threat of execution as the respondent had initiated execution.

Issues

1. Whether an interim order for stay of execution should be granted pending the hearing of the substantive application for stay.
2. Whether taxation of costs constitutes a threat of execution.

Orders

• Application granted.
• Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Judicature Act s.48(1)(b)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.6(2)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.42(1)

Cases cited (3)

• Patrick Kaumba v Ismall Dabule No. 3 of 2018 SCCA
• Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
• Guiliano Gariggo v Calaudio Casadio SCCA No. 3 of 2013

Cases citing this judgment (10)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• M/s Mukono Bookshop Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd v Magdalene Lamwaka (Miscellaneous Application No. 846 of 2025)
• Matthew Rukikaire v Incafex Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 768 of 2025)
• DFCU Bank Limited v Meera Investments Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 3165 of 2024)
• Katsinde George and Another v Rubarekyera George and Others (Civil Application No. 184 of 2025)
• Batambuze v Ataro (Civil Application 512 of 2024) followed
• Nabagala v Sekabere & Another (Civil Application 260 of 2024)
• Kabugo v Nantongo & Another (Miscellaneous Application 373 of 2024)
• Sserubiri and 2 Others v Salama and 2 Others (Civil Application 185 of 2023)
• Kigozi andrew v Mukasa Ronald (Miscellaneous Application No. 1364 of 2022)
• Adupo Florence vs Atuto Jacinta (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 41 of 2021)

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