[2008] UGCommC 24

[2008] UGCommC 24

The court found that the applicant failed to establish special circumstances warranting a stay of execution. The applicant did not provide evidence that the respondent would be unable to refund the decretal amount if the appeal succeeded. The respondent, being a reputable international association, is presumed able...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] UGCommC 24
Parties
Applicant: Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd; Respondent: International Air Transport Association
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-MA 86 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Performance, Substantial Loss, Pending Appeal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Stay of Execution Security for Performance Substantial Loss Pending Appeal

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd

Applicant

International Air Transport Association

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for a stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if execution proceeds.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's ability to refund the decretal amount if the appeal succeeds is relevant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish special circumstances warranting a stay of execution. The applicant did not provide evidence that the respondent would be unable to refund the decretal amount if the appeal succeeded. The respondent, being a reputable international association, is presumed able to restore the applicant to the status quo ante, and this was not rebutted. The applicant's assertion of substantial loss was vague and unsupported by specific details. The court reiterated that substantial loss must be particularized and proved, not merely asserted. The pendency of an appeal and the likelihood of its success are not sufficient grounds for stay. The applicant...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

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