Wakilii

Sewankambo Dickson v Ziwa Abby - (HCT-00-CC-MA 178 of 2005)

High Court · [2005] UGCOMMC 9 · 2005 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to Court of Appeal arising from High Court judgment in civil suit for vehicle hire charges
Decision
Stay of execution granted conditional upon deposit of security of Shs.5,000,000 within 30 days

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 granted the application for stay of execution. The lodgement of a notice of appeal is sufficient to support a stay application without waiting for the full appeal to be filed. The applicant satisfied the three conditions: substantial loss would result from arrest and detention in civil prison, the application was made without unreasonable delay, and security for costs of Shs.5,000,000 (approximately one-third of the decretal amount) was ordered to be deposited within 30 days.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted conditional upon deposit of security of Shs.5,000,000 within 30 days

Facts

The applicant hired a vehicle from the respondent with payment on a daily basis. The applicant made a down payment of Shs.140,000 covering two days. The vehicle later broke down in Arua and was towed back to Kampala. The respondent sued for outstanding hire charges and towing expenses in HCCS No. 498/2002. Justice Arach-Amoko found for the respondent, disbelieving the applicant's claim that he had paid the hire charges. The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 3 December 2004. On 1 March 2005, the Registrar issued a notice to show cause why a warrant of arrest should not issue. The applicant then filed this application for stay of execution pending appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant should be granted a stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the lodgement of a notice of appeal alone, without filing the full appeal, is sufficient to support an application for stay of execution.
  3. Whether the three conditions for granting a stay of execution have been satisfied: substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and provision of security for costs.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Applicant to deposit Shs.5,000,000 in court as security for due performance of the decree within 30 days from 1 April 2005 (on or before 2 May 2005).
  • In default of payment, the order shall lapse and the respondent shall be at liberty to proceed with execution by way of attachment and sale of applicant's property, unless cause is shown to the contrary.
  • Each party to bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Notice of Appeal
The lodgement of a notice of appeal is sufficient to support an application for stay of execution; an applicant need not wait until the full appeal is filed with memorandum of appeal, record of appeal, and payment of fees before seeking a stay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Test for Granting Stay
An application for stay of execution pending appeal is granted where three conditions are satisfied: (a) substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order of stay is made, (b) the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and (c) security for costs has been given by the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss is a qualitative concept referring to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value, as distinguished from a loss without value or a loss that is merely nominal. Arrest and detention of a businessman in civil prison would constitute substantial loss where his businesses would suffer and where successful appeal could not wash away the stigma.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security for Costs
Security for costs of the appeal, rather than security for the entire decretal amount, is sufficient for granting a stay of execution. Insistence on security for the entire decretal amount would stifle possible appeals, especially in commercial matters where decretal amounts are typically colossal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Purpose of Stay
It is the paramount duty of a court to which an application for stay of execution pending appeal is made to see that the appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.39 r.4(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.39 r.5
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.23(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.26
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.39 r.4(3)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.39 r.4(3)(c)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.48 r.1

Cases cited (6)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • G.M. Combined (U) Ltd v A.K. Detergents (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 384 of 1994)
  • Ujagar Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA 263
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lusejjere (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 29 of 2003)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In liquidation) (Misc. Application No. 379 of 2003)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Uganda Bottlers Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 25 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sewankambo Dickson v Ziwa Abby - (HCT-00-CC-MA 178 of 2005) [2005] UGCommC 9 (31 March 2005)
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.