Wakilii

Stirling Civil Engineering Limited V Besigwa (Miscellaneous Application 221 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 190 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from judgment in Civil Suit No. 445 of 2014
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

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

Application for stay of execution dismissed. The applicant failed to prove with cogent evidence that substantial loss would result or that the respondent lacked capacity to refund the decretal amount if the appeal succeeded. Mere allegation of the respondent's inability to refund without supporting evidence is insufficient. The applicant did not demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if execution proceeded.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant, Stirling Civil Engineering Ltd, sought to stay execution of a judgment in Civil Suit No. 445 of 2014 pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applicant had filed Civil Appeal No. 366 of 2022 and argued that the respondent, Charles Besigwa from Ntugamo district, was a person of simple means who would be unable to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. The applicant claimed it would suffer irreparable loss and offered to furnish security. The respondent opposed the application, contending it was incompetent and did not meet the grounds for stay of execution.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should issue orders staying execution of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 445 of 2014 pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Proof of Substantial Loss
An applicant seeking stay of execution pending appeal must prove with cogent evidence that substantial loss will result unless the order is made. Mere allegation that the decree holder lacks capacity to refund the decretal amount, without supporting evidence, is insufficient to satisfy the requirement of substantial loss.
Stay of Execution — Burden of Proof — Inability to Refund
The inability of the victorious party to refund the decretal amount in the event of a successful appeal is a special circumstance justifying stay of execution, but this must be proved with evidence. The applicant must lead evidence to show that the respondent indeed lacks capacity to refund and that payment would affect the applicant's financial position.
Stay of Execution — General Principle — Fruits of Litigation
An appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of execution. The court does not deprive a successful litigant of the fruits of litigation except for good and cogent reasons. 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 (3)

Cases cited (5)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Stirling Civil Engineering Limited V Besigwa (Miscellaneous Application 221 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 190 (30 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.