Wakilii

Paresh and Another v Virani and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 233 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of taxation appeal orders pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

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

An application for stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy three requirements: substantial loss may result to the applicant, the application was made without undue delay, and security has been given. The applicants failed to prove substantial loss beyond mere payment of the decretal sum, which can be compensated in damages if the appeal succeeds. Mere assertion of substantial loss without demonstration is insufficient to warrant court intervention to stop execution of a judgment.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicants filed Civil Suit No. 284 of 2017 which was dismissed for want of prosecution. The respondents filed a bill of costs totalling UGX 391,475,120. The Taxing Master awarded UGX 101,471,000. Both parties appealed the taxation decision via Taxation Appeal No. 19 of 2019 and No. 20 of 2019 respectively. Both appeals were dismissed. The applicants filed a notice of appeal and applied for stay of execution of the taxation appeal ruling and orders. The respondents opposed the application, arguing the appeal period had expired and no valid appeal was pending, though no evidence was furnished to support this contention.

Issues

  1. Whether the order sought for stay of execution should be granted?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Requirements Under Order 43 Rule 4 CPR
An applicant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must plead and prove: (a) substantial loss may result unless the order is granted; (b) the application has been made without undue delay; and (c) security has been given for due performance of the decree or order.
Substantial Loss — Meaning and Proof Required
Substantial loss does not represent any particular amount or size and cannot be quantified by mathematical formulae. It refers to loss of real worth or value as distinguished from loss without value or that which is merely nominal. It does not mean ordinary loss or the decretal sum which must be settled by the losing party.
Stay of Execution — Burden of Proof on Substantial Loss
Mere allegation of substantial loss without demonstration of the loss cannot warrant intervention of the court to stop a successful party from realisation of the fruits of judgment through execution. Where the loss alleged is merely payment of the decretal sum which can be atoned in damages if the appeal succeeds, the ground of substantial loss is not established.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Mugenyi & Co. Advocates v NIC (SCCA No. 13 of 1984)
  • Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (SCCA No. 18 of 1990)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) (2004) EA 331
  • Kisawuzi v Dan Oundo Malingu (HCMA No. 467 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Paresh and Another v Virani and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 196 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 233 (24 October 2022)
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.