[2004] UGSC 38

[2004] UGSC 38

The court held that the applicant had not satisfied the conditions for being heard and granted an ex parte interim order for stay of execution. While there may be grounds to fear imminent execution, the application was premature and there was no evidence that hearing the respondent would defeat the objective of the application. The court emphasized that the interim procedure is not a substitute for the substantive procedure for stay, and should only be invoked in compelling circumstances to prevent defeat of justice. The mere filing of a notice of appeal does not automatically entitle a party to an interim stay. The application was dismissed, leaving the applicant to pursue either an...

Citation
[2004] UGSC 38
Parties
Applicant: Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd; Respondent: Atabya Agencies Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
13 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ex Parte Interim Application Before Single Judge
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Interim Orders, Bank Guarantees, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Stay of Execution Interim Orders Bank Guarantees Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd

Applicant

Atabya Agencies Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ex Parte Interim Application Before Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of an ex parte interim stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the urgency and risk of irreparable loss justify dispensing with inter partes hearing for the interim order.
  3. 3 Whether the mere filing of a notice of appeal is sufficient ground for stay of execution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant had not satisfied the conditions for being heard and granted an ex parte interim order for stay of execution. While there may be grounds to fear imminent execution, the application was premature and there was no evidence that hearing the respondent would defeat the objective of the application. The court emphasized that the interim procedure is not a substitute for the substantive procedure for stay, and should only be invoked in compelling circumstances to prevent defeat of justice. The mere filing of a notice of appeal does not automatically entitle a party to an interim stay. The application was dismissed, leaving the applicant to pursue either an...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The ex parte application for interim stay of execution is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.