Wakilii

Tahar Fourati Hotels Ltd v Nile Hotel (Int) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 614 of 2003)

High Court · [2003] UGCOMMC 129 · 2003 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court order pending appeal to the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed

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

Application for stay of execution dismissed. The applicant failed to satisfy the first and most critical requirement under Order 39 rule 4(3) CPR—that substantial loss would result if the stay were not granted. The court found the applicant's claim of substantial loss speculative, as it presumed without evidence that privatisation would leave the respondent unable to satisfy a future judgment. The court also characterised the application as frivolous and an abuse of process, noting that the applicant's proper remedy lay in the civil suit it had filed for breach of contract.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Facts

The applicant and respondent entered into a management contract in the mid-1990s for the respondent's hotel on plots 16-20 Nile Avenue, Kampala. The respondent rescinded the contract before expiry, which the applicant considered a breach entitling it to compensation. The applicant lodged a caveat on the certificate of title. The respondent filed Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2003 seeking to vacate the caveat. On 6 October 2003, the court vacated the caveat and awarded the respondent UGX 5,000,000 as compensation for inconvenience suffered during the three months the caveat stood. The applicant obtained leave to appeal and filed a Notice of Appeal on 6 October 2003, followed by this application on 7 October 2003 seeking to stay execution of the order vacating the caveat and awarding compensation.

Issues

  1. Whether execution under High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2003 should be stayed pending disposal of the applicant's appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of Order 39 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules for granting a stay of execution.
  3. Whether Order 39 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules applies to applications for stay of execution of High Court orders pending appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Requirements for Stay Pending Appeal
Before granting a stay of execution pending appeal, the court must consider whether substantial loss may result to the applicant if the stay is not granted, whether the application was made without unreasonable delay, and whether the applicant has given security for costs. Once these three conditions are fulfilled, the stay ought to be granted regardless of whether the appeal will succeed or fail.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Burden of Proof
The requirement that substantial loss may result to the applicant if the stay is not granted cannot be satisfied by presumptuous or speculative assertions. An applicant must provide evidence of specific, foreseeable substantial loss. A claim that privatisation will render the respondent unable to satisfy a future judgment is speculative where there is no evidence of the type or effect of the privatisation.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Frivolous Applications
An order for stay of execution must be intended to serve a legitimate purpose. Where an application is frivolous or an abuse of the process of law, the court should refuse to grant it even if the technical requirements for a stay are satisfied.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Wilson & Church, 1879 12 Ch. Div. 454
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. A. P. Lusejjere (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 29 of 2003)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Mugenyi v NIC (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1984)

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.

Tahar Fourati Hotels Ltd v Nile Hotel (Int) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 614 of 2003) [2003] UGCommC 129 (7 November 2003)
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.