[2003] UGHC 81

[2003] UGHC 81

The court found that the applicant failed to prove any of the requirements for a stay of execution, including good cause, special circumstances, and evidence of an intended cross-appeal or its likelihood of success. The assertion of a cross-appeal was unsupported by evidence, and no special circumstances were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] UGHC 81
Parties
Applicant: The Cooperative Bank Ltd (in receivership/statutory liquidation); Respondent: Kabaco (U) Ltd
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Misc.App.No. 73 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Costs, Appeal Procedure, Bank Liquidation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Stay of Execution Security for Costs Appeal Procedure Bank Liquidation

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Cooperative Bank Ltd (in receivership/statutory liquidation)

Applicant

Kabaco (U) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause and special circumstances to justify a stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient evidence of an intended cross-appeal and its prospects of success.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution in the absence of security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove any of the requirements for a stay of execution, including good cause, special circumstances, and evidence of an intended cross-appeal or its likelihood of success. The assertion of a cross-appeal was unsupported by evidence, and no special circumstances were demonstrated. The relevant law for stay of execution in this context is not Order 39 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the matter concerns an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

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