Wakilii

Teopista & Jesus Holdings Limited & 2 Others v Cairo Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application 950 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 238 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of partial judgment pending appeal from High Court Commercial Division ruling
Decision
Stay of execution denied; applicants may proceed with their appeal but respondent may enforce the partial decree

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

Held that a partial judgment determining liability for an admitted sum is a decree appealable as of right under section 66 of the Civil Procedure Act, even where leave to defend remains for a disputed amount. The court declined to grant a stay of execution because the applicants failed to prove that their appeal had a likelihood of success, that they would suffer irreparable damage, or that there was an imminent threat of execution. The balance of convenience favored dismissing the application, as the decreed sum was one the applicants had admitted and did not dispute.

Outcome

Stay of execution denied; applicants may proceed with their appeal but respondent may enforce the partial decree

Facts

Cairo Bank Ltd sued Teopista & Jesus Holdings Ltd and guarantors Maria Nteganyi and Teopista Nabbale for recovery of UGX 9,119,312,433 under a loan facility. The applicants applied for leave to appear and defend. On 17 May 2023, the court entered judgment against them for UGX 5,038,066,702, an amount they admitted owing, but granted leave to file a defence on the disputed balance of UGX 4,081,245,731. The applicants filed a notice of appeal and applied to stay execution of the partial decree pending that appeal. They argued that execution would render the appeal nugatory and that they would suffer irreparable loss. The respondent opposed the stay on the basis that the applicants had shown no imminent threat of execution, no likelihood of success on appeal, and no irreparable damage.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a valid appeal against the partial decree entered under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the affidavit in reply was filed out of time and should be struck out.
  3. Whether the affidavit in reply is defective for want of authorization and other formalities.
  4. Whether the Applicants satisfy the grounds for staying execution of the partial decree pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Right of Appeal — Partial Decree — Whether a Decree within the Meaning of Section 2(c) Civil Procedure Act
Where a court enters judgment for a sum admitted by the defendant and grants leave to file a defence on the disputed balance, the judgment determining liability for the admitted sum is a decree within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Civil Procedure Act because it conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to that portion of the claim, and is therefore appealable as of right under section 66 without leave of court.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Institutional or Pendency of Appeal Does Not Automatically Stay Execution
The institution or pendency of an appeal does not per se stay execution of a decree. It is incumbent upon the applicant in every application for stay of execution to satisfy the court that grounds exist for the grant of a stay. The assumption that once a party has filed an appeal a stay of execution must follow as a matter of course has no legal basis.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Proof of Irreparable Loss or Substantial Loss — Burden on Applicant
An applicant for stay of execution must establish that irreparable damage or substantial loss will result if the stay is not granted. It is not enough to merely repeat that substantial loss will result; the kind of loss must be specified, details must be given, and the court's conscience must be satisfied that such loss will really ensue. The words 'substantial loss' must mean something in addition to and different from the ordinary loss which every judgment debtor necessarily suffers when he loses his case and is deprived of property in consequence.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Imminent Threat of Execution — Proof Required
For a stay of execution to be granted on the basis of imminent threat of execution, there must be evidence of steps demonstrating a serious expression of intent to execute, including extracting the decree, presenting and having a bill of costs taxed, applying for issuance of a warrant of execution, or issuing a notice to show cause why execution should not issue. In the absence of such evidence, no imminent threat of execution is established.
Evidence — Affidavits — Ostensible Authority — Company Secretary Deposing on Behalf of Company
An employee of a company in the position of acting head or company secretary need not attach special authorization before deposing to facts in a case on behalf of the company. The law presumes that such officers have ostensible authority to act for the company. Companies can only perform acts through individuals, and those individuals act on behalf of the company with authority implied from the nature of their office.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (21)

  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Kibalama Mugwanya v Butebi Investments Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2013)
  • Andrew Kibirige v Haruna Kato (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 920 of 2013)
  • Hwan Sung Ltd v M and D Timber Merchants and Transport Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • Kuluo Joseph Andrew and Others v Attorney General and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 106 of 2010)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol vs Bank of Uganda SCCA No. 8
  • Nicholas Roussos v Ghulam Hussein Habib Virani and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1993)
  • FL Kaderbhai and Another v Shamsherali and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 20 of 2008)
  • Equity Bank Ltd v John Buyiza (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 33 of 2018)
  • Friecca Pharmacy Ltd v Anthony Natif (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 498 of 2019)
  • TMA Architects and Another v Prome Consultants Limited (Miscellaneous Cause No. 80 of 2022)
  • Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Formular Feeds Ltd and Others v KCB Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2023)
  • E.L.T Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Katende Abdu Nasser (1985) HCB 43
  • Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co. SA (1995-1998) 1 EA 312
  • Bansidhav vs Pribku Dayal AIR 41 1954
  • Osman Kassam Ramathan v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2019)
  • Lucy Mary Orech v Kabogoza Mutwalib (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 200 of 2020)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v East Africa Property Holding Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2014)

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.

Teopista & Jesus Holdings Limited & 2 Others v Cairo Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application 950 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 238 (12 August 2024)
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.