Wakilii

Watulatsu Samuel & 2 Ors v. Zirimu Haruna (HCT-04-CV-MA-0050-2010)

High Court · [2010] UGHC 168 · 2010 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal from Magistrate's Court decree
Decision
Execution stayed pending appeal subject to provision of security by all applicants

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 execution of the decree should be stayed pending appeal where the applicants demonstrated sufficient cause and provided adequate security. Sufficient cause was shown by the risk that recovery would be difficult if the decree were executed and the appeal succeeded, given the respondent's uncontested lack of known property or income. Security must be provided by all three applicants and include both the motor vehicle and binding sums from the second and third applicants.

Outcome

Execution stayed pending appeal subject to provision of security by all applicants

Facts

The applicants filed an appeal (HCCA 39/2010) against a Magistrate's Court decree in Civil Suit 143/2008 ordering them to pay the respondent Shs 200,000 as general damages, Shs 2,000,000 as special damages, and Shs 5,000,000 as exemplary damages with interest at 12% per annum and costs. The applicants sought a stay of execution pending appeal. The applicants contended they would suffer substantial loss if execution proceeded because the respondent had no known property or source of income and would be unable to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. The applicants offered a motor vehicle (Toyota Carib UAE 194 V) as security. The respondent appeared in person and opposed the application, asserting his entitlement to enjoy the fruits of litigation and arguing that the security offered was insufficient.

Issues

  1. Whether execution of the decree in Civil Suit 143/2008 should be stayed pending determination of the appeal.
  2. Whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause for stay of execution.
  3. Whether the security offered by the applicants is sufficient for the due performance of the decree.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution allowed.
  • Execution of the decree in Civil Suit 143/2008 stayed pending determination of High Court Civil Appeal 0039 of 2010.
  • First applicant to produce Carib vehicle UAE 194 V before the Registrar for viewing with its latest third party insurance cover as security.
  • Second and third applicants to bind themselves respectively in the sum of Shs 5,000,000 each (not cash) for the due performance of the decree.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions for Grant
For a stay of execution to be granted pending appeal, the applicant must show sufficient cause, demonstrate that substantial loss may result unless the order is made, apply without undue delay, and provide security for the due performance of the decree as will ultimately be binding.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Sufficient Cause — Risk of Irrecoverable Payment
Where the judgment creditor has no known property or source of income, the risk that the decretal sum cannot be recovered if paid and the appeal succeeds constitutes sufficient cause to stay execution pending appeal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Burden of Proof — Financial Position of Judgment Creditor
Where an applicant for stay of execution deposes that the judgment creditor has no property or known source of income and the judgment creditor does not rebut this with evidence of his financial position, the court may accept the applicant's averments as genuine and find sufficient cause for stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Security — Multiple Applicants
Where there are multiple applicants for stay of execution, each applicant should provide security that will bind them respectively for the due performance of the decree at the end of the appeal, and the court should consider the decretal sum as well as the potential outcome of the appeal in determining sufficiency of security.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.4(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.43 r.5

Cases cited (2)

  • Sem Kagwa v Beatrice Nakityo [2001-2005] 2HCB 120
  • Ntege Mayambala v Christopher Mwanje (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 72 of 1991)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Watulatsu Samuel & 2 Ors Vs. Zirimu Haruna (HCT-04-CV-MA-0050-2010) [2010] UGHC 168 (13 July 2010)
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.