Wakilii

Sanlam General Insurance Uganda Limited v Finance Trust Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 03 of 2024)

Tribunal · [2024] UGIAT 6 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision pending appeal to High Court
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending appeal; applicant to provide bank guarantee for 30% of decretal amount

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 Insurance Appeals Tribunal granted a stay of execution of its earlier decision pending appeal to the High Court. The Tribunal held that the applicant satisfied the requirements under Order 43 r.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules: a notice of appeal was properly lodged; the decretal sum of UGX 1,905,148,996 was substantial and would affect the applicant's operations; the application was made without unreasonable delay; there was an imminent threat of execution through garnishee proceedings; and the applicant expressed willingness to provide security. The Tribunal ordered security in the form of a bank guarantee for 30% of the decretal amount.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending appeal; applicant to provide bank guarantee for 30% of decretal amount

Facts

Sanlam General Insurance Uganda Limited sought a stay of execution of the Insurance Appeals Tribunal's decision dated 1st August 2024 which upheld a decision of the Insurance Regulatory Authority. The decretal sum was UGX 1,905,148,996. Sanlam filed a notice of appeal to the High Court on 30th August 2024. Finance Trust Bank commenced garnishee proceedings to execute the Tribunal's decision. Sanlam filed this application on 27th September 2024, three days after the garnishee application was made. Finance Trust Bank opposed the stay, arguing that the appeal had no likelihood of success and that Sanlam had shown stubbornness in honouring obligations. The bank sought full deposit of the decretal amount if a stay was granted.

Issues

  1. Whether execution of the Tribunal's decision dated 1st August 2024 should be stayed pending appeal to the High Court
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties

Orders

  • Execution of the Decision entered in Application No.4 of 2024 against the Applicant be stayed pending hearing of the Appeal by the High Court.
  • The Applicant shall furnish the Tribunal with security in the form of a bank guarantee of 30% of the decretal amount made in favour of the Respondent to be held until disposal of the appeal in the High Court.
  • Each party to bear its costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements under Order 43 r.4 CPR
An appeal does not operate as a stay of execution unless the court orders otherwise. A party seeking a stay of execution must prove: (1) lodgment of an appeal in the appellate court; (2) that substantial loss may result unless the order is made; (3) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (4) that there is a serious and imminent threat of execution; and (5) that security has been given for due performance of the decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal as Proof of Lodgment
A notice of appeal properly filed and admitted on the court system is sufficient expression of an intention to file an appeal and constitutes adequate proof of lodgment of an appeal for purposes of an application for stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
The phrase 'substantial loss' does not represent any specific amount or size and cannot be quantified by mathematical formula. It refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value rather than merely nominal. The court must balance the applicant's interest in preserving the status quo so the appeal is not rendered nugatory against the respondent's interest in enjoying the fruits of judgment.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance
Security for due performance operates as insurance cover to indemnify the judgment creditor if the appeal fails. Courts have been reluctant to order security for the entire decretal amount because such a requirement is likely to stifle appeals. The court must balance the respondent's right to protection against the risk that the appellant may not satisfy the decree with the appellant's right to access the courts. Security for costs should not be used as a mechanism to frustrate an appeal by ordering amounts the applicant cannot pay.
Insurance — Regulatory Proceedings — Stay of Execution of Tribunal Decision
Where an insurance company appeals a decision of the Insurance Appeals Tribunal to the High Court and the decretal sum would affect the insurer's operations (particularly where reinsurance arrangements are involved), and there is an imminent threat of execution through garnishee proceedings, a stay of execution may be granted upon provision of reasonable security rather than the full decretal amount.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (13)

  • Lawrence Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Wandera Michael v Baguma Samalie (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 036 of 2021)
  • Equity Bank Uganda Ltd v Nicholas Were (Miscellaneous Application No. 604 of 2013)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Dr Ahmed Muhammed Kisule v Greenland Bank (in liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 7 of 2010)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda vs. The East African Law Society & Another EACJ Application No. 1 of………
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr Ann Persis Nakate Lusejjere (Civil Application No. 29 of 2003)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & 2 Ors v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Alice Wambui Nganga v. John Ngure Kahoro and another, ELC Case No. 482 of 2017 (at Thika); [2021] eKLR
  • Kisaalu Joseph & 10 Ors v Nakintu May & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2020)
  • New Vision Publishing Corporation & 2 Ors v Peter Kaggwa (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2006)
  • Formular Feeds & Ors v KCB Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sanlam General Insurance Uganda Limited v Finance Trust Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 03 of 2024) [2024] UGIAT 6 (4 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.