Wakilii

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Atabya Agencies Ltd [2004] UGSC 38

Supreme Court · 2004 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application to a single judge of the Supreme Court for an interim order to stay execution pending appeal
Decision
Ex parte application for an interim order of stay dismissed; applicant left to elect between an inter partes interim application and pursuing the pending substantive stay application (Civil Application No. 30 of 2004)

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

On an ex parte application to a single judge for an interim order to stay execution pending appeal, the court held that a pending notice of appeal does not automatically entitle a party to an interim stay; such an order is granted under r.1(3) only where necessary to achieve the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, and only in compelling circumstances pending an ascertained hearing of the substantive stay application. The applicant failed to show that hearing the respondent inter partes would defeat the objective, so the ex parte application was premature. The court dismissed the application, leaving the applicant to elect between an inter partes interim application and pursuing its pending substantive stay application.

Outcome

Ex parte application for an interim order of stay dismissed; applicant left to elect between an inter partes interim application and pursuing the pending substantive stay application (Civil Application No. 30 of 2004)

Facts

In HCCS No. 1197/99 the respondent obtained judgment against Uganda Commercial Bank (UCB) for special and general damages. UCB obtained a stay pending appeal on executing a guarantee to pay the decretal amount if the appeal failed. The applicant, claiming to have merged with UCB, brought Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2003, which was struck out as incompetent. The respondent then obtained a High Court order compelling the applicant to honour the guarantee. The applicant appealed (Civil Appeal No. 59/04) and obtained a stay on depositing a bank draft for Shs. 1,001,742,124. The Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal on 7 December 2004, and the applicant lodged a notice of appeal on 8 December 2004. On presentation the deposited draft was rejected as stale, and the respondent's advocates threatened to enforce the guarantee within 24 hours. The applicant filed a substantive stay application (No. 30/04) and then this ex parte application for an interim stay.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for an interim order for stay of execution to be granted ex parte pending the hearing of a substantive application for stay.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Interim Order — Effect of a Pending Notice of Appeal
A pending notice of appeal does not of itself entitle a party to an interim order for stay of execution; such an order is granted under r.1(3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court only where it is necessary to achieve the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Grounds — Sufficient Cause and Irreparable Loss
An intention to appeal is not in itself a ground for stay of execution, and instituting an appeal does not operate as a stay; a party seeking a stay must show sufficient cause why the successful party should postpone enjoyment of the judgment, including that execution may cause some irreparable loss, mere vulnerability to execution being insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Ex Parte Applications — When the Court Will Proceed Without Notice
It is a cardinal principle that every party must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before adjudication; a court will proceed ex parte only where it is satisfied that an inter partes hearing is likely to defeat the ends of justice or where a party given notice fails to avail itself of the opportunity to be heard.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Interim Order by a Single Judge — Relationship to the Substantive Application
Although an application for a stay of execution under r.49(2) cannot be heard by a single judge, an application for an interim order can; the interim procedure must not be used as an alternative or substitute for, or to negative, the substantive stay procedure, and an interim order should be made only in compelling circumstances to prevent the defeat of justice and strictly pending the ascertained hearing of the substantive application by the full Court.

Legislation cited (4)

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

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Atabya Agencies Ltd [2004] UGSC 38 (13 December 2004)
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.