Teddy Sseezi Cheeye and Another v Tumusiime (Civil Application No. 21 95)

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for stay of execution of a High Court defamation decree of UGX 10,000,000 pending appeal. The Court held that mere institution of an appeal does not operate to stay execution, and that an applicant must show sufficient cause. Impecuniousness — the applicants' concession that they lacked cash to pay the decretal sum — did not amount to sufficient cause, as the application was in effect being used to buy time. Similarly, the inconvenience inherent in any execution could not ground a stay, since every judgment debtor is inconvenienced by execution. Grounds relating to exclusion from trial and excessiveness of damages were matters for the appeal itself.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The respondent sued the applicants in the High Court for damages for defamation. The suit initially proceeded ex-parte and judgment was entered against the applicants, but that ex-parte judgment was set aside on their application. The applicants filed a defence and the suit was fixed for hearing, but on the hearing day neither the applicants nor their counsel appeared, and the court again ordered ex-parte proceedings. Counsel later appeared and sought to set aside the ex-parte order and to be allowed to participate, but that application was refused, as was a subsequent application for leave to appeal. Judgment was entered ex-parte against the applicants on 28 October 1996, awarding UGX 10,000,000 as general and aggravated damages. The applicants filed a notice of appeal, then applied to the High Court for a stay of execution, which was dismissed for want of sufficient cause. They then applied to the Court of Appeal for a stay. Their counsel conceded they had no cash to pay the decretal sum.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants had shown sufficient cause to justify an order for stay of execution pending appeal.
2. Whether impecuniousness or the inconvenience of execution amounts to sufficient cause for a stay of execution.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs of the application to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.5(2)(b)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.41
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.42(2)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.43(1)
• Rules of the Court of Appeal r.75

Cases cited (1)

• Francis Hansio Micar v Nuwa Walakira (Civil Application No. 9 of 1990)

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.

• Simon Peter Ongodia v Apuda Ignatius Loyola (Civil Application No. 490 of 2024)

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