Wakilii

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Atabya Agencies Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 235 of 2006)

High Court · [2006] UGHC 92 · 2006 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act arising from High Court MA 109 of 2004, HCCS 1197 of 1999 and Supreme Court Civil Appeal 02 of 2005, seeking stay of execution and determination of whether interest accrues on decretal sums deposited in court pending appeal
Decision
Application granted; execution stayed; no further interest due on decretal sum deposited in court pending appeal

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that where the full decretal sum and accrued interest are deposited in court as a condition for stay of execution pending appeal, further interest does not accrue during the period the money is held by the court. Payment into court as security for a stay is as good as payment to the judgment creditor where the appeal fails, because the applicant no longer has use of the money and the judgment creditor can collect without going through execution.

Outcome

Application granted; execution stayed; no further interest due on decretal sum deposited in court pending appeal

Facts

The applicant bank lost in the High Court and Court of Appeal. It appealed to the Supreme Court and obtained a stay of execution on condition that it deposit Ug. Shs.1,110,595,410 with the Supreme Court Registrar within thirty days. The applicant complied and deposited the full decretal sum and accrued interest as at 22 December 2004. The applicant lost the Supreme Court appeal. The respondent collected the deposited money and thereafter demanded an additional Ug. Shs.148,031,294 as interest for the period from 22 December 2004 to 22 March 2006, being the period during which the money was held by the Supreme Court. The applicant resisted, arguing that interest should not accrue while the money was deposited in court. The original dispute stemmed from HCCS 1197 of 1999 which culminated in a consent decree in 2003.

Issues

  1. Whether execution should be stayed.
  2. Whether interest continues to accrue on a decretal sum deposited in court pending an appeal.
  3. If interest does accrue, what sum is actually due.

Orders

  • The sum of Shs.148,031,294/= claimed as additional interest does not arise.
  • Execution against the respondent on account of interest is stayed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Interest on Judgment Debts — Accrual During Stay of Execution
Interest is the return or compensation for the use or retention by one person of a sum of money belonging to or owed to another. The basis of an award of interest is that the defendant has kept the plaintiff out of his money and has had use of it himself.
Stay of Execution — Effect of Deposit in Court on Accrual of Interest
Where the full decretal sum and accrued interest are deposited in court as a condition for stay of execution pending appeal, further interest does not accrue during the period the money is held by the court, because the judgment debtor no longer has use of the money and the judgment creditor can collect the full amount without going through execution if the appeal fails.
Payment Into Court — Distinction from Execution Payment
Payment into court as a condition for stay of execution, where the appeal fails, is as good as payment to the judgment creditor because the creditor can collect the money without going through the execution process. The fact that the court deposits the money in a bank branch of the judgment debtor for banking purposes does not alter this principle, as such a deposit creates different legal relationships outside the case.
Finality of Proceedings — Interpretation of Judicature Act s.33
Allowing interest to continue accruing on sums held by the court pending appeal would be contrary to section 33 of the Judicature Act, which calls on the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction so that all matters in controversy between the parties may be completely and finally determined and all multiplicities of legal proceedings avoided.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Harbutt's Plasticide Ltd v Wyne Tank and Pump Co Ltd [1970] 1 All ER 225 (CA)
  • Moir v Wallersteiner (No 2) [1975] 1 All ER 849 (CA)
  • Kazinga Channel Office World Ltd v Attorney General (HCCS No. 276 of 2005)

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.

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 (Miscellaneous Application No. 235 of 2006) [2006] UGHC 92 (26 October 2006)
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.