Wakilii

Tropical Bank Limited v Musoke & Another (Civil Application 278 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2024] UGCA 241 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending determination of an application for leave to appeal out of time.
Decision
Stay of execution granted on terms (security deposit of 30% of allowed costs; release of attached motor vehicle) pending determination of the appeal.

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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

On an application for a stay of execution pending determination of an application for leave to appeal out of time, the single Justice held that a notice of appeal lodged together with a pending application to validate an out-of-time appeal is sufficient to found the Court's discretion to grant a stay, and the Court need not inquire into the merits of the validation application at that stage. The delay in lodging the notice of appeal, caused by the negligence of the applicant's former advocates, was excused as such negligence should not be visited on the litigant. The application was granted on terms, including the deposit of security and the release of an attached motor vehicle.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted on terms (security deposit of 30% of allowed costs; release of attached motor vehicle) pending determination of the appeal.

Facts

Judgment in High Court Civil Suit No. 491 of 2016 was entered against the applicant bank in favour of the respondents. Dissatisfied, the applicant sought to appeal but its former advocates failed to take timely steps; it later instructed new advocates and filed a notice of appeal and an application for leave to appeal out of time (Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2021), which remained unheard. The respondents commenced execution, amended a warrant of attachment and sale of moveable property, impounded a motor vehicle belonging to the applicant and advertised it for sale, and attached furniture from banking halls and offices. The applicant brought this application for a stay of execution pending determination of its application to appeal out of time, contending that continued execution would render its intended appeal nugatory and cause substantial loss, and that the delay was attributable to its former advocates' negligence.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established a likelihood of success in the intended appeal where it had filed a notice of appeal and an application for leave to appeal out of time that had not yet been heard.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable damage or have its intended appeal rendered nugatory if a stay of execution was not granted.
  3. Whether the application for stay of execution was brought without inordinate delay.
  4. Whether the applicant should be required to furnish security for the due performance of the decree.

Orders

  • The application is granted and a stay of execution is ordered until the appeal is determined, under the Court's inherent power in Rule 2(2) of the Rules of the Court.
  • Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
  • The applicant shall deposit 30% of the costs allowed for the respondents as security for the due performance of the decree.
  • The respondents / Court bailiff shall release to the applicant motor vehicle registration number UBQ 363 M.
  • The applicant is ordered to take all necessary steps to ensure that Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2021 (the appeal/validation) is ready for hearing at the earliest time possible.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions and discretion under Rule 6(2)(b), Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules
The Court has discretion to grant a stay of execution in civil proceedings where a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with Rule 76; the applicant must establish a likelihood of success or a prima facie case of a right to appeal, that irreparable damage will result or the appeal be rendered nugatory if a stay is refused, and that the application was brought without delay, with the balance of convenience considered where the first two conditions are not met.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Validity of appeal — Notice of appeal coupled with application to validate an out-of-time appeal
Where an applicant has lodged a notice of appeal together with a pending application to validate or extend time for an out-of-time appeal, that is sufficient to found the Court's jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution, and the Court need not inquire into the merits of the validation application at that stage.
Civil Procedure — Delay — Negligence of advocate not to be visited on the litigant
Delay attributable to the negligence of an advocate to whom a litigant has entrusted the conduct of an appeal should not be visited on the litigant, and such delay may be excused for the purposes of granting a stay of execution.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.10
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.12
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.43(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.43(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.76(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules SI 13-10 r.76(2)

Cases cited (12)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Hon Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • Haruna Sentongo v I&M Bank Limited (Civil Application No. 1069 of 2023)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 340 of 2013)
  • Baguma Patrick v Sanyu Phiona (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 452 of 2023)
  • Nestor Gasasira Machumbi v Zia Uwera Murekatete (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 282 of 2021)
  • Commissioner Customs Uganda Revenue Authority v Kayimba (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2014)
  • Formula Feeds Ltd and 3 Others v KCB Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1647 of 2023)
  • G v C (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 03 of 2013)
  • Registered Trustees of the Hindu Union v Kagoro Epimac and 3 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 304 of 2017)
  • Capt. Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero Owoto (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Abid Alam v Windriver Logistics Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 219 of 2021)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Tropical Bank Limited v Musoke & Another (Civil Application 278 of 2024) [2024] UGCA 241 (5 September 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.