Sentongo v I and M Bank Limited (formerly Orient Bank Uganda Limited) (Civil Application 1069 of 2023)

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

Sitting as a single Justice, the court granted an interim order of stay of execution. It held that the three conditions were met: the applicant had filed a notice of appeal and an application to validate/extend time for the civil reference, which sufficed without inquiry into that application's merits; the substantive application for stay (Civil Application No. 113 of 2023), once referred to a panel under Rule 55, remained pending without need for a fresh application; and the respondent's filing of a bill of costs for taxation amounted to a serious, imminent threat of execution, taxation being a process of execution. The court declined to follow the contention that taxation is not a threat of execution.

Outcome

Interim stay of execution granted pending determination of Civil Reference No. 023 of 2023 and Civil Application No. 113 of 2023 by a panel of three Justices

Facts

The applicant obtained successive loan facilities from the respondent bank, running to several billion shillings, to construct Segawa Market on Kibuga Block 12 Plots 250, 251 and 252, Kisenyi. After he defaulted, the facilities were consolidated and default notices issued. Litigation followed; the consolidated High Court suits (No. 464 of 2018 and No. 036 of 2019) were decided on 23 December 2022 in the respondent's favour, the applicant being ordered to pay about UGX 10.38 billion plus UGX 150 million general damages. The applicant appealed (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2023). A single Justice earlier granted a temporary injunction over the suit property but declined a stay of execution. The applicant filed Civil Reference No. 023 of 2023 to refer Civil Application No. 113 of 2023 to a panel, and an application to validate/extend time for the reference. Meanwhile the respondent filed a bill of costs for taxation. The applicant brought this application for an interim stay pending the reference.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution, namely a competent notice of appeal or reference, a pending substantive application, and a serious threat of execution.
2. Whether the filing of an application for extension of time and/or validation of a civil reference, together with a notice of appeal, satisfies the first condition where the competence of the reference is challenged.
3. Whether Civil Application No. 113 of 2023, already determined by a single Justice, remains a pending substantive application once a reference is filed against it.
4. Whether taxation of a bill of costs constitutes a serious threat of execution.

Orders

• An interim order is granted staying the execution of the decree of the High Court (Commercial Division) in Consolidated Civil Suits No. 464 of 2018 and No. 036 of 2019 until the determination of Civil Reference No. 023 of 2023 and Civil Application No. 113 of 2023 by a bench of three Justices of Appeal.
• The Applicant shall comply with regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations No. 2 of 2021.
• The Registrar is directed to fix Civil Reference No. 023 of 2023 in the nearest available session.
• Each party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 6(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 42
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 44
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 55(1)
• Judicature Act s.12(2)
• Civil Procedure Act s.38
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rule 23(3)
• Mortgage Regulations No. 2 of 2021 reg.13(1)

Cases cited (12)

• Zubeda Mohammed and another v Lalia Lakha Walia & Anor (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
• Goodman Agencies Ltd v Hasa Agencies (K) Ltd (Civil Reference No. 1 of 2011)
• Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Civil Application No. 35 of 2019)
• Osman Kassim Ramathan v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Civil Application No. 34 of 2019)
• Mohammed Mohammed Hamid v Roko Construction Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause No. 18 of 2017)
• Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussien and 2 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2008)
• Francis Drake Lubega v Attorney General & 2 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2015)
• Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (In liquidation) (Civil Application No. 7 of 2010)
• Krone Uganda Ltd v Kerilee Investments Ltd (Miscellaneous Applications No. 66 and 67 of 2020)
• G v C (Civil Application No. 3 of 2013)
• Katayira Francis v Rogers Bosco Bugembe (Civil Reference No. 9 of 2017)
• Registered Trustees of The Hindu Union v Kagoro Epimac and 2 others (Civil Application No. 304 of 2017)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Tropical Bank Limited v Musoke & Another (Civil Application 278 of 2024)

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