Wakilii

Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (HCT-00-CC-MA 86 of 2006)

High Court · [2008] UGCOMMC 24 · 2008 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicant may proceed with appeal but execution not stayed

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

Application for stay of execution dismissed. The court held that a stay of execution requires proof of special circumstances and good cause. The applicant failed to establish that substantial loss would result from execution proceeding, offering only vague generalised assertions without supporting details. The respondent's ability to refund the decretal amount if the appeal succeeded negated any claim that the appeal would be rendered nugatory. Pendency of an appeal and likelihood of success are not sufficient grounds for a stay.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicant may proceed with appeal but execution not stayed

Facts

Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd was the judgment debtor in HCCS No. 667 of 2003. On 25 January 2008, the High Court dismissed the company's suit against International Air Transport Association and held in favour of the respondent on a counterclaim. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal and sought a stay of execution of the decree pending appeal. The applicant argued it would suffer substantial loss if execution proceeded and that the appeal had a reasonable likelihood of success. The respondent contended it was a going commercial concern able to refund any money received if the appeal succeeded, and that the applicant had not furnished security for performance of the decree.

Issues

  1. Whether the execution of the decree in HCCS No. 667 of 2003 should be stayed pending appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant demonstrated special circumstances justifying a stay of execution.
  3. Whether the applicant established that it would suffer substantial loss if execution proceeded.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Inherent Jurisdiction under Section 98 Civil Procedure Act
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to grant a stay of its own decree pending an appeal, but may only exercise this discretion where there are special circumstances and good cause to justify a stay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Proof of Substantial Loss
An applicant seeking a stay of execution must go beyond vague and generalised assertions of substantial loss. The kind of loss must be specified, details must be given, and the court must be satisfied that such loss will really ensue. Substantial loss means something in addition to and different from the ordinary loss which every judgment debtor necessarily suffers when deprived of property following an adverse judgment.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Ability of Successful Party to Refund
The inability of the victorious party to refund the decretal amount in the event of a successful appeal is a special circumstance that may justify a stay of execution if proved. Where the successful party deposes on oath that it will be able to refund the amount and this averment is neither denied nor rebutted, the presumption is that it is admitted as a true fact and no stay will be granted.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Pendency of Appeal and Likelihood of Success
Pendency of an appeal is not a bar to a successful party's right to enforce a decree by execution. The likelihood of an intended appeal succeeding and willingness of the applicant to deposit security for performance of the decree are not legal requirements for consideration in determining whether to grant a stay of execution.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (9)

  • Mugenyi & Co Advocates v NIC (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1984)
  • Francis Mansio Micah Vs Nuwa Walakira (1992 - 1993 HCB 88
  • Massa Vs Achen (1978) HCB 297
  • Editor-in-Chief, The New Vision Newspaper v Jeremiah Ntabgoba (Civil Application No. 63 of 2004)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board Vs Cogecot Cotton Co SA (1995 - 1998) IEA 312
  • Bansidhar Vs Pribku Dayal AIR 41 1954
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Tembo Steels Ltd (HCT-00-CC-MA-0521-2007)
  • National Pharmacy Ltd Vs Kampala City Council (1979) HCB 132
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lusejjere (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 29 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (HCT-00-CC-MA 86 of 2006) [2008] UGCommC 24 (27 March 2008)
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.