Wakilii

Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Christian Rural Eyesight Promotion Limited (Miscellaneous Application 92 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 172 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal from High Court judgment in HCCS No. 432 of 2018
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

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 High Court dismissed an application by Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited for stay of execution of a judgment pending appeal. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss that would be irreversible, as payment of money decreed by court is recoverable if the appeal succeeds. The court found that the applicant had not shown the respondent organization would be unable to repay the decreed amount if the appeal succeeded, and therefore no substantial loss justifying a stay was established.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited applied for stay of execution of a judgment in HCCS No. 432 of 2018 pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. The underlying judgment had found that the bank erroneously paid out money intended for Christian Rural Eyesight Promotion Limited without establishing the correctness of the person receiving the money. The bank argued it would suffer irreparable damage if the judgment was executed and the appeal would be rendered nugatory. The respondent opposed, contending the application was intended to delay access to funds needed to provide services to vulnerable communities, and that the bank was guilty of dilatory conduct. The respondent argued the decree was for return of funds wrongfully dealt with by the bank.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should stay the execution of the decree pending appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Recoverability of Money
Payment of money decreed by court does not amount to substantial loss justifying stay of execution where the money is recoverable if the appeal succeeds and the applicant has not shown the respondent would be unable to repay the decreed amount.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Nugatory Appeal — Recoverability
An appeal is not rendered nugatory by execution of a money decree where the applicant can still argue the appeal successfully and recover any money paid in execution from the respondent.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Burden of Proof — Inability to Recover
A party applying for stay of execution pending appeal must persuade the court that it will be unable to recover the sums required to be paid if the appeal succeeds, and this is a major consideration upon which the court may order stay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Discretion — Protection of Decree Holder
A party who has obtained a lawful decree should not be deprived of the fruits of that decree except for good and cogent reasons, and a decree passed by a competent court should be allowed to be executed unless a strong case is made out on cogent grounds.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tadjin Husein and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2008)
  • Transtrack Ltd v Damco Logistics (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 608 of 2012)
  • Baguma Paul T/A Panache Associates v Eng Karuma Kagyina (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 460 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Christian Rural Eyesight Promotion Limited (Miscellaneous Application 92 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCD 172 (16 June 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.