Uganda Revenue Authority v Tumusiime (Civil Application 212 of 2023)

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

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal granted the Uganda Revenue Authority a stay of execution pending its appeal against a malicious-prosecution judgment. The Court restated the conditions for a stay (likelihood of success, irreparable loss, balance of convenience and reasonable time) and held the appeal raised triable issues, that the respondent's apparent inability to refund the colossal decretal sum exposed the applicant to irreparable loss, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant. The stay was granted on condition that the applicant deposit UGX 50,000,000 as security for due performance within one month, with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted pending Civil Appeal No. 276 of 2019, conditional on deposit of UGX 50,000,000 as security for due performance within one month

Facts

The respondent, a former employee of the Uganda Revenue Authority, was arrested and prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 499 of 2007 and was acquitted. He then sued the applicant in HCCS No. 480 of 2016 for damages for malicious prosecution and unlawful termination of employment. On 12 July 2019 the High Court entered judgment for the respondent, awarding general damages of UGX 50,000,000 with interest at 17% from the date of judgment, plus costs. The applicant appealed (Civil Appeal No. 276 of 2019). The respondent demanded a total of UGX 148,353,596 (taxed costs, general damages with interest, and a proposed additional bill of costs). An earlier application for stay (HCMA No. 0440 of 2022) was dismissed with costs on 24 April 2023. The applicant then brought this application for a stay of execution pending the appeal, contending that the respondent had stated in the lower court that he had lost his job and had no source of income, so the colossal sum could not be recovered if the appeal succeeded.

Issues

1. Whether the intended appeal has a likelihood of success or raises triable issues.
2. Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss or the appeal will be rendered nugatory if a stay of execution is not granted.
3. Where the balance of convenience lies as between the parties.
4. Whether the application was made within reasonable time.
5. Whether a stay of execution should be granted, and on what terms as to security for due performance of the decree.

Orders

• The application is granted.
• The applicant to deposit security for due performance of the decree in the sum of UGX 50,000,000 with the Registrar of the Court within one month.
• Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10, Rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10, Rule 6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10, Rule 42
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10, Rule 43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, SI 13-10, Rule 76

Cases cited (13)

• Uganda Revenue Authority v National Social Security Fund (Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2023)
• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
• Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
• Uganda Revenue Authority v Murisa Amon (Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2018)
• Wilson v Church (1879) 12 Ch D 454
• DFCU Bank Ltd v Dr. Ann Persis Nakate Lussejere (Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2003)
• Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & Ors v Credit Bank (in liquidation) (2003) 2 EA 331
• National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
• Walusimbi Mustafa v Musenze Lukia (Miscellaneous Application No. 2342 of 2018)
• Andrew Kisawuzi v Dan Oundo Malingu (HCMA No. 467 of 2013)
• Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
• American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
• Shell Ltd v Kibiru and Another (1986) 1 KLR 410

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.

• Uganda Revenue Authority v Tumusiime (Civil Application 617 of 2024)

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