Umeme Limited v Kadecember (Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2021)

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

The court considered an application for stay of execution of a judgment pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applicant established that a notice of appeal had been filed. The judgment text ends abruptly before the court's final determination on whether to grant the stay. The court recited the legal requirements under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules: substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security for due performance.

Outcome

Ruling Incomplete

Facts

Umeme Limited sought a stay of execution of the judgment in Civil Suit No. 67 of 2012 pending the hearing of its appeal in Civil Appeal No. 223 of 2020 before the Court of Appeal. Judgment in the underlying suit had been delivered in favour of Stella Kadecember on 15 July 2020 by Justice Dr. Zeija Falvian. Umeme filed a notice of appeal on 17 July 2020. Umeme argued it would suffer substantial loss if execution proceeded and the appeal succeeded, as recovery of the decretal sum from the respondent would not be guaranteed. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that Umeme had not shown eminent threat of execution, had not satisfied the requirement for security for due performance, and that she as decree holder was entitled to the fruits of her judgment.

Issues

1. Whether the Applicant satisfied the conditions under Order 43 Rule 4(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules for a stay of execution pending appeal.
2. Whether the Applicant demonstrated that substantial loss would result if stay of execution is not granted.
3. Whether the Application was made without unreasonable delay.
4. Whether security for due performance of the decree should be provided or waived.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 12
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 Rule 27
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 Rule 23
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 Rule 4(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 Rule 4(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 51 Rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 3

Cases cited (3)

• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
• Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kisule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 7 of 2010)
• Kisaalu Joseph & 10 Others v Nakiito Mayi & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 105 of 2020)

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.

• Prinsloo Thomas Kiminta and Others v John Mayombo (HCT-01-CV-CS-0018-2013; HCT-01-CV-MA-0018-2026) followed
• Ssanyu v Bukorwe (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 3 of 2022)

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