Ratidu Trading Ltd and Another v Equity Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 2561 of 2025)
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 court dismissed the application for stay of execution. The order dismissing the review application was a negative order incapable of execution, and therefore not amenable to a stay. The order for costs, though executable, did not meet the threshold for substantial loss. Critically, the applicants' notice of appeal was incompetent because an appeal from an order dismissing a review application requires leave of court under section 76 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 44 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which the applicants had not obtained.
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicants' purported appeal declared procedurally incompetent for lack of leave to appeal
Facts
The respondent bank obtained default judgment against the applicants in Civil Suit No. 1102 of 2023 for recovery of UGX 1,317,881,432.26 after the applicants failed to secure leave to defend. The applicants then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 0940 of 2025 seeking review and setting aside of the judgment, claiming their former counsel negligently failed to attach proof of payment of UGX 700,000,000. The review application was dismissed on 25 August 2025. The applicants filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 0626 of 2025) and then brought this application seeking stay of execution of the orders dismissing the review application, pending determination of their appeal. The applicants claimed the respondent had commenced execution proceedings and that they would suffer substantial loss including collapse of their business and sale of properties worth over UGX 10 billion. The respondent opposed, arguing the dismissal order was a negative order incapable of execution and that the applicants' appeal was incompetent because they had not obtained the required leave to appeal from an order dismissing a review application.
Issues
- Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal should be allowed.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98
- Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.38
- Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.76
- Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.37
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 43 rule 4(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 43 rule 4(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 43 rule 4(3)
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 44 rule 2
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 15 rule 3
Cases cited (5)
- Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
- Kyambogo University v Prof Isiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 341 of 2013)
- Finasi/Roko Construction SPV (LTD) and Another v Finasi International FZC (Civil Application No. 220 of 2019)
- Exclusive Estate Limited V Kenya Posts and Telecommunications Corporation and Another [2005] 1 EA 53 (CA)
- Dr Ahmed Mohhamad Kisule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2010)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.