[1995] UGHC 32

[1995] UGHC 32

The court found that the application for stay of execution was misconceived because there was no memorandum of appeal pending in the Supreme Court, only a notice of appeal. The application was brought under the wrong procedure (chamber summons instead of notice of motion) and did not satisfy the requirements for a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1995] UGHC 32
Parties
Plaintiff: Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd; Defendant: M/S Energo Project Corporation
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
H.C.C.S No.207 of 1993
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Pending Appeal, Breach of Contract, Special and General Damages
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Stay of Execution Pending Appeal Breach of Contract Special and General Damages

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd

Plaintiff

M/S Energo Project Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution is maintainable under Order 19 Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether there is a pending appeal in the Supreme Court to justify a stay of execution.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss if execution proceeds before the appeal is determined.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay of execution was misconceived because there was no memorandum of appeal pending in the Supreme Court, only a notice of appeal. The application was brought under the wrong procedure (chamber summons instead of notice of motion) and did not satisfy the requirements for a stay under the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant failed to demonstrate that execution would render the appeal nugatory or cause irreparable loss, as the respondent had the means to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. The court also found that the application was not bona fide and was intended to delay the course of justice. The legal authorities cited require a...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondent.