Wakilii

Somali Democratic Republic v Anoop Sunderlal Treon (Civil Case No. 11 of 1988)

Supreme Court · [1988] UGSC 8 · 1988 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion under rule 5 of the Rules of the Court for a stay of execution pending appeal
Decision
Stay of execution granted pending the disposal of the intended appeal; applicant not to be evicted from the suit premises in the meantime

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 preliminary objection, holding that rule 5 does not require the decree to be extracted and annexed to the notice of motion; the annexed copy of the judgment sufficiently informed the court of the decree. On the merits, applying Wilson v Church and Kampala City Council v National Urban Ltd, the court found good cause and special circumstances: the intended appeal was arguable and would be rendered nugatory if the house were sold before its disposal, eviction would cause hardship, and the respondent (resident in London) could be compensated by rent. The stay was granted and the proposed Shs. 200,000 security for costs was refused, costs of the application to be in the cause.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending the disposal of the intended appeal; applicant not to be evicted from the suit premises in the meantime

Facts

The applicant, the Somali Democratic Republic, used the suit house as its embassy premises. It was the unsuccessful defendant in High Court Civil Suit No. 976 of 1987, in which the respondent, Anoop Sunderlal Treon, succeeded. The trial judge (Kityo J.) held that because the applicant had not registered the transfer of the house, the sale transaction became voidable, and ordered the applicant to vacate the premises by 20 January 1989. The applicant filed a notice of appeal dated 31 October 1988 and applied for a stay of execution. It feared that the respondent, who resides in London, might sell the house before the appeal was heard, thereby rendering the appeal nugatory, and that eviction would cause hardship as the premises were its only residence. The next session of the court at which the appeal could be heard was likely to fall in the new year, after the date by which the applicant was required to vacate.

Issues

  1. Whether a notice of motion seeking a stay of execution must be accompanied by the extracted decree sought to be stayed.
  2. Whether the applicant had shown good cause and special circumstances justifying a stay of execution pending appeal.
  3. Whether the applicant should be ordered to deposit Shs. 200,000 as security for the costs of the intended appeal.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution granted.
  • Respondent's preliminary objection dismissed.
  • Order for deposit of Shs. 200,000 as security for costs refused.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Form of Application — Annexure of Decree
Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court does not require that the decree sought to be stayed first be extracted and annexed to the notice of motion; an annexed copy of the judgment that sufficiently informs the court of the decree is enough to support an application for a stay of execution pending appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Good Cause and Special Circumstances
A stay of execution pending appeal will be granted only where the court is satisfied that there is good cause and special circumstances justifying it.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Appeal Rendered Nugatory — Preservation of Status Quo
Where refusal of a stay would render a bona fide appeal nugatory, such as where the property in dispute could be sold before the appeal is disposed of, and the respondent can be compensated, a stay should be granted to preserve the status quo.
Civil Procedure — Security for Costs — Discretionary Deposit on Appeal
The court will not order a large discretionary deposit as security for costs under rule 5(2)(b) where the respondent has not justified the need for it and the appellant is presumed to pay the compulsory statutory deposit on lodging the appeal.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.5
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.5(2)(b)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.74
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.85(1)(h)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court r.104

Cases cited (2)

  • Wilson v Church (No. 2) (1879) 12 Ch D 454
  • Kampala City Council vs. National Urban Ltd (1979)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Somali Democratic Republic v Anoop Sunderlal Treon (Civil Case No. 11 of 1988) [1988] UGSC 8 (19 December 1988)
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.