[2013] UGSC 11

[2013] UGSC 11

The Supreme Court held that the original decree in HCCS No. 1197 of 1999 provided for interest to be paid 'till payment in full.' The deposit of the decretal sum plus interest in court was a condition for stay of execution and did not amount to payment in full to the respondent. The respondent was kept out of its money until the appeal was finally disposed of and the funds released. There was no express or implied waiver of the right to claim further interest by the respondent. The trial judge erred in holding that no further interest was due after deposit in court, as this amounted to an illegal review of the original decree. The Court of Appeal was correct in finding that further...

Citation
[2013] UGSC 11
Parties
Appellant: Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited; Respondent: Atabya Agencies Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
30 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interest on Decretal Sums, Stay of Execution, Waiver of Rights, Bank Guarantees, Execution of Judgments
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Interest on Decretal Sums Stay of Execution Waiver of Rights Bank Guarantees Execution of Judgments

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited

Appellant

Atabya Agencies Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether further interest accrues on money deposited in court pending appeal until final judgment.
  2. 2 Whether depositing the decretal sum in court constitutes a waiver of the right to claim further interest.
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in law and fact by holding that no further interest was due after deposit in court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the original decree in HCCS No. 1197 of 1999 provided for interest to be paid 'till payment in full.' The deposit of the decretal sum plus interest in court was a condition for stay of execution and did not amount to payment in full to the respondent. The respondent was kept out of its money until the appeal was finally disposed of and the funds released. There was no express or implied waiver of the right to claim further interest by the respondent. The trial judge erred in holding that no further interest was due after deposit in court, as this amounted to an illegal review of the original decree. The Court of Appeal was correct in finding that further...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appellant shall pay to the respondent interest accrued on the decretal sum until payment in full, as stated in the decree in HCCS No. 1197 of 1999.
  • The appellant shall pay costs of the appeal in the Supreme Court and in the courts below.