Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Atabya Agencies Ltd [2004] UGSC 37

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

On an ex parte application for an interim order staying execution pending appeal, the Supreme Court (single judge) held that an intention to appeal, or the lodging of a notice of appeal, does not of itself operate as or justify a stay of execution; the applicant must show sufficient cause and a risk of irreparable loss if execution proceeds. An interim order under rule 1(3) is granted only in compelling circumstances to prevent defeat of justice, and may be heard ex parte only where proceeding inter partes would itself defeat the ends of justice. The applicant had not shown that hearing the respondent would defeat the application's purpose, so it was premature. The application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicant left to elect between filing an inter partes application for an interim order and pursuing Civil Application No. 30 of 2004.

Facts

In HCCS No. 1197/99 the respondent successfully sued Uganda Commercial Bank (UCB) for special and general damages. UCB lodged a notice of appeal and obtained a stay of execution on executing a guarantee to pay the decretal amount if the appeal failed. The applicant, purporting to have merged with UCB, instituted Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2003, which was struck out as incompetent. The respondent then moved the High Court to compel the applicant to honour its guarantee, and the High Court so ordered. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2004) and was granted a stay on depositing a bank draft of Shs. 1,001,742,124. On 7 December 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal; the applicant lodged a notice of appeal the next day. When the released bank draft was presented for banking it was rejected as stale, and the respondent's advocates threatened to enforce the guarantee within 24 hours. The applicant then filed the present ex parte application for an interim stay of execution.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant had satisfied the conditions for an interim order for stay of execution to be granted ex parte pending appeal.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Supreme Court Rules r.1(3)
• Supreme Court Rules r.5(2)(b)
• Supreme Court Rules r.46(2)
• Supreme Court Rules r.49(2)

Cases cited (3)

• Horizon Coaches Ltd v Pan African Insurance Ltd (Civil Application No. 20 of 2002)
• Horizon Coaches Ltd v Francis Mutabazi & Others (Civil Application No. 21 of 2001)
• Wilson Mukiibi v James Semusambwa (Civil Application No. 9 of 2003)

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.

• National Forestry Authority v The Omukama of Bunyoro-Kitara & Others (Civil Application No. 266 of 2019)

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