Wakilii

Tugumisirize and Another v Mawanda and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 673 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 127 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to the Court of Appeal arising from Civil Suit No. 104 of 2017
Decision
Stay of execution refused; respondents entitled to proceed with execution of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 104 of 2017

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

Held that an applicant for stay of execution must satisfy all four mandatory conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules: filing a notice of appeal, demonstrating substantial loss if stay is not granted, applying without unreasonable delay, and providing security for due performance of the decree. The applicants satisfied the first and third requirements but failed to demonstrate substantial loss or willingness to provide security. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Stay of execution refused; respondents entitled to proceed with execution of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 104 of 2017

Facts

The applicants had been found liable in Civil Suit No. 104 of 2017 arising from the negligent killing of the respondents' father. Judgment was delivered on 30 June 2021 awarding the respondents general damages of UGX 180,000,000 plus interest at 10% per annum and costs totaling UGX 218,039,200. The applicants filed a notice of appeal on 6 July 2021 and sought stay of execution pending appeal. The applicants, a security company, claimed they were financially affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and unable to pay security for due performance. The respondents, minor children represented by their grandmother as next friend, opposed the application and sought payment of security if the stay was granted.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should stay the execution of the decree in this suit pending appeal.
  2. Whether the applicants have satisfied the necessary grounds for a grant of stay of execution under Order 43 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Stay of Execution — Four Mandatory Requirements Under Order 43 Rule 4(3)
An applicant seeking stay of execution of a decree pending appeal must satisfy all four mandatory conditions under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules: (1) filing a notice of appeal; (2) demonstrating that substantial loss will result if the stay is not granted; (3) making the application without unreasonable delay; and (4) providing security for due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him.
Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Burden of Proof
The phrase 'substantial loss' in the context of stay of execution does not represent any particular amount or size and cannot be qualified by any particular mathematical formula. It refers to any loss, great or small, of real worth or value as distinguished from a loss that is merely nominal. An applicant must furnish proof of the substantial loss claimed rather than making bare assertions.
Stay of Execution — Deprivation of Fruits of Judgment — Successful Party's Rights
The provisions of Order 43 rule 4 are mandatory and not merely directory. The position is grounded on the principle that the successful party should not without good reason be deprived of the fruits of a judgment in their favour. An applicant must present sufficiently strong grounds, well substantiated, to justify depriving the respondent of the fruits of judgment.
Stay of Execution — Security for Due Performance — Purpose
The requirement for payment of security for due performance of a decree is intended to ensure that a losing party does not intentionally delay execution while hiding under unnecessary applications. Courts will not grant stay where an applicant is unable or unwilling to provide security for due performance.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (9)

  • Kampala City Council Authority v Mulangira Joseph (Miscellaneous Application No. 26 of 2016)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda v Atyaba Agencies (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2004)
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v The Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 03 of 2014)
  • John Baptist Kawanga v Namyalo Kevina and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Singh V Rundah Coffee Estates Ltd [1996] EA
  • Tropical Commodities Supplies Ltd and 2 Others v International Credit Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) [2004] 2 EA 331
  • Sewankambo Dickson v Ziwa Abby (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 178 of 2005)
  • Ujagar Singh Vs Runda Coffee Estates Ltd

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tugumisirize and Another v Mawanda and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 673 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 127 (22 August 2022)
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.