Wakilii

Uganda Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd v Johnston Group Ltd (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 873 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 70 · 2021 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of High Court ruling pending appeal to Court of Appeal; cross-application for contempt of court
Decision
Conditional stay of execution granted requiring deposit of decretal sum within 90 days; contempt application dismissed

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

The court dismissed the contempt application, finding that UETCL acted within the law by filing a notice of appeal and stay application within the prescribed time. On the stay application, the court held that UETCL failed to prove likelihood of success on appeal or substantial loss, but granted a conditional stay requiring deposit of the decretal sum (USD 651,511) in court within 90 days, failing which the stay would expire.

Outcome

Conditional stay of execution granted requiring deposit of decretal sum within 90 days; contempt application dismissed

Facts

Johnston Group Limited obtained judgment against Isolux Ingenieria in Civil Suit No. 468 of 2017 for unpaid subcontract works. A garnishee order absolute was issued against UETCL to release monies held on behalf of Isolux. UETCL appealed the Registrar's ruling to the High Court (Misc. Appeal No. 007 of 2018), which was dismissed on 25 September 2020. UETCL then filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal and applied for stay of execution. Johnston Group filed a cross-application alleging UETCL was in contempt for failing to comply with the 25 September 2020 order. UETCL claimed it had used the garnishee funds to complete unfinished works, though no evidence was adduced to support this assertion.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's affidavit in reply was filed out of time and should be struck off the record.
  2. Whether the applicant was in contempt of court for failing to comply with the court order of 25 September 2020.
  3. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution pending appeal under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection regarding late filing of the affidavit in reply is dismissed.
  • The contempt application (M.A No. 1224 of 2020) is dismissed.
  • A conditional stay of execution is granted.
  • The decretal sum of USD 651,511 shall be deposited in court within 90 days from 30 April 2021, failing which the stay of execution shall expire.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Applications — Time Limits for Filing Reply — Court's Discretion to Excuse Late Filing
Where a party files an affidavit in reply outside the 15-day period prescribed by Order 12 rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may exercise its discretion to excuse the late filing where a plausible explanation is advanced and no prejudice is occasioned to the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Actions Taken Within Appeal Period
A party cannot be found in contempt of a court order where it takes lawful steps to appeal the order within the prescribed time, including filing a notice of appeal and an application for stay of execution, even if the opposing party has requested compliance with the order.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant — Likelihood of Success
To obtain a stay of execution pending appeal, an applicant must establish: (i) that the appeal has a likelihood of success or a prima facie case; (ii) that the applicant will suffer irreparable damage or the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted; (iii) where the balance of convenience lies; and (iv) that the application was instituted without delay.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Pendency of Appeal Not a Bar to Execution
The pendency of an appeal is not a bar to a successful party's right to enforce a decree obtained, even by execution. The mere filing of a notice of appeal does not automatically operate to stay execution proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss — Burden of Proof
To establish substantial loss for purposes of a stay of execution, it is not enough to merely repeat the words of the code; the kind of loss must be specified with details, and the court's conscience must be satisfied that such loss will really ensue. Substantial loss must mean something in addition to and different from the ordinary loss which every judgment debtor necessarily suffers when deprived of property in consequence of losing a case.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditional Stay — Deposit of Decretal Sum
Where an applicant fails to prove likelihood of success on appeal or substantial loss, but the unique facts and history of the case warrant intervention, the court may grant a conditional stay of execution requiring the applicant to deposit the decretal sum in court within a specified period, failing which the stay shall expire.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (10)

  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Dr. Lam-Laqoro James v Muni University (Miscellaneous Cause No. 007 of 2019)
  • Housing Finance Bank & Anor v Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v The Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Gashumba Maniraquha v Sam Nkudiye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2015)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Tembo Steels Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 0521 of 2007)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co. SA (1995-1998) 1 E.A 312
  • BansidhavVs Pribku Daval AIR 41 1954
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lusejjere (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2003)
  • Fredrick Mukasa and another v Jade Petroleum (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2374 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd v Johnston Group Ltd (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 873 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 70 (30 April 2021)
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.