Wakilii

Springs International Hotel Ltd and Another v Dorothy Adebanjo (Administratrix of Estate of Late Kenny Adebanjo) [2023] UGCOMMC 321

High Court · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of decree pending appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed for failure to meet statutory conditions

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 an application for stay of execution pending appeal where the applicants failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicants filed the application more than a year after judgment delivery without explanation, failed to demonstrate what substantial loss would be suffered that could not be atoned by damages, and provided no evidence of payment or willingness to provide security for due performance of the decree. There was also no evidence of an imminent threat of execution, rendering the application premature.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed for failure to meet statutory conditions

Facts

The respondent had obtained judgment on 18 February 2022 in two consolidated civil suits (HCCS No. 471 of 2009 and HCCS No. 337 of 2009) against the two applicants. A decree was subsequently extracted. The applicants filed a Notice of Appeal on 1 March 2022 and later, on 28 March 2023, filed this application seeking stay of execution of the decree pending determination of their appeal. The applicants stated they were prepared to provide security through an insurance bond but did not adduce evidence of payment or of the bond itself. The respondent opposed the application on grounds of unreasonable delay (the application was filed more than a year after judgment), lack of demonstrated substantial loss, absence of security, and absence of any imminent threat of execution. The applicants contended they only received the typed record of proceedings on 12 September 2023, explaining the delay in prosecuting the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether this is a proper case for an order for stay of execution pending appeal to be issued.
  2. Whether the applicant has lodged a Notice of Appeal.
  3. Whether substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the stay of execution is granted.
  4. Whether there has been unreasonable delay in filing this application.
  5. Whether the applicants have given security for due performance of the decree or order.
  6. Whether there is an imminent or serious threat of execution.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution Pending Appeal — Mandatory Conditions Under Order 43 Rule 4(3) CPR
An applicant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy all three mandatory conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules: (a) that substantial loss may result unless the order is made, (b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and (c) that security has been given for the due performance of the decree. Failure to satisfy all conditions results in dismissal of the application.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Requirement for Specificity
For purposes of stay of execution, substantial loss means actual loss that cannot be atoned by damages and which is in addition to and different from the ordinary loss every judgment debtor suffers when deprived of property in consequence of losing a case. The applicant must specify the kind of loss, give details, and satisfy the court's conscience that such loss will really ensue. Mere assertion that a change in possession will cause loss is insufficient.
Stay of Execution — Unreasonable Delay — Filing More Than One Year After Judgment
Filing an application for stay of execution more than one year after judgment delivery, in the absence of any explanation for the delay, amounts to unreasonable delay within the meaning of Order 43 rule 4(3)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules and constitutes a ground for dismissing the application.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Requirement of Actual Payment or Evidence
It is insufficient for an applicant seeking stay of execution to merely assert willingness to pay security deposits or provide an insurance bond. The applicant must adduce actual evidence of payment of security for costs or for due performance of the decree, or evidence of the alleged insurance bond. There is no guarantee that assertions of willingness will be followed up, especially where no effort has been shown by the time of the application.
Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution — Need for Evidence
An applicant seeking stay of execution must prove that there is a serious and imminent threat of execution of the decree or order. Courts should not order a stay where there is no evidence of any application for execution of the decree. A stay application filed where only a decree and judgment are on record, with no evidence of an application for execution, warrant of execution, or notice to show cause why execution should not issue, is premature.
Stay of Execution — Purpose of Security for Costs
Security for costs is intended to operate as a shield against the filing of frivolous and vexatious appeals which may never succeed yet have an effect in escalating trial costs. It also operates as insurance cover meant to indemnify the judgment creditor in the event the appeal fails without recourse to vigorous processes of recovering such costs.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (14)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa v Itobu Margret (HCMA No. 0160 of 2022)
  • Ntege Mayambala v Christopher Mwanje (HCMA No. 72 of 1991)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Appeal No. 341 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (Misc. Application No. 379 of 2003)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Coqecot Cotton Co SA (1995-1998) 1 EA 312
  • Bansidhav v Pribku Dayal AIR 41 1954
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr Ann Persis Nakate Lusejjere (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2002)
  • Shem Mpanga Mukasa and Another v Kizza Clessy Barya (Misc. Application No. 479 of 2021)
  • Kisaalu Joseph and 10 Others v Nakintu May and Another (Misc. Application No. 105 of 2020)
  • Wandera Micheal v Baguma Samalie (Misc. Application No. 36 of 2021)
  • Hwangsung Industries Ltd v Tadjuadin Hussein and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2008)
  • Baguma Paul T/A Panache Associates v Eng Karuma Kagyina (HCMA No. 460 of 2020)
  • Orient Bank Ltd v Zaabwe and Others (HCMA No. 19 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Springs International Hotel Ltd and Another v Dorothy Adebanjo (Administratrix of Estate of Late Kenny Adebanjo) 2023 UGCommC 321 (28 September 2023)
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.