Share
King James Comprehensive School Limited & 2 Others v ECO Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2755 of 2023; Miscellaneous Application 2756 of 2023) [2024] UGCommC 267 (17 January 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] UGCommC 267
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Anna B. Mugenyi, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 2755 of 2023 ; Miscellaneous Application 2756 of 2023
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Anna B. Mugenyi, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 2755 of 2023 ; Miscellaneous Application 2756 of 2023
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the law requires security for due performance of the decree to be furnished before a stay of execution can be granted. The applicants' request to deposit only 5% of the decretal sum was rejected as an afterthought and not supported by their affidavit or the law. Since both parties agreed to a bank guarantee for the full decretal amount, the court ordered the applicants to provide a bank guarantee for Ugx 5,341,084,070.44 within two months, failing which execution proceedings may continue. The decision was grounded in Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the parties' mutual agreement on the form and amount of security.
Court disposition
application granted subject to provision of bank guarantee for full decretal sum
Orders
- Applicants to furnish a bank guarantee for Ugx 5,341,084,070.44 within two months from the date of the ruling.
- Failure to provide the bank guarantee within the stipulated period will result in continuation of execution proceedings.
02
Material facts
Parties
King James Comprehensive School Limited
ApplicantOdongo Dickson
ApplicantAjwang Evaline
ApplicantEco Bank Uganda Limited
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Decretal Sum: UGX 5,341,084,070.44
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants should be granted a stay of execution pending furnishing of security for due performance of the decree.
- 02
What form and amount of security is appropriate for the due performance of the decree.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants prayed to be allowed to deposit 5% of the decretal amount as security for due performance, relying on case law and arguing that the court has discretion to determine the amount and form of security required.
- Respondent
- The respondent conceded to the application provided the applicants furnished a bank guarantee for the full decretal sum of Ugx 5,341,084,070.44 within 14 days.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Stay of execution may be granted if security is given for due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding.
- 02
Case law cited by applicants (not specified in ruling)
Court has discretion to determine the amount and form of security for due performance.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the law requires security for due performance of the decree to be furnished before a stay of execution can be granted. The applicants' request to deposit only 5% of the decretal sum was rejected as an afterthought and not supported by their affidavit or the law. Since both parties agreed to a bank guarantee for the full decretal amount, the court ordered the applicants to provide a bank guarantee for Ugx 5,341,084,070.44 within two months, failing which execution proceedings may continue. The decision was grounded in Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the parties' mutual agreement on the form and amount of security.
Obiter and limits
- The submissions of counsel for the applicants from the Bar praying to deposit 5% of the decretal sum cannot be relied on by this court and appear to be an afterthought.
- The law is clear on the requirement for security for due performance, and the applicant is willing to comply as stated.
Court disposition
application granted subject to provision of bank guarantee for full decretal sum
- Applicants to furnish a bank guarantee for Ugx 5,341,084,070.44 within two months from the date of the ruling.
- Failure to provide the bank guarantee within the stipulated period will result in continuation of execution proceedings.
Source and reliance status
Commercial Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Commercial Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
MISCELLANOUS APPLICATION NO. 2755 AND 2756 OF 2023
- 1. KING JAMES COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL LIMITED - 2. ODONGO DICKSON - 3. AJWANG EVALINE
APPLICANTS
VERSUS
ECO BANK UGANDA LIMITED ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE ANNA . B. MUGENYI
Date: 17<sup>th</sup> January 2024
RULING
I have read the pleadings and listened to the submissions of counsel in this matter.
Counsel for the respondent conceded to the application provided the 15 applicant furnished a bank guarantee for the decretal sum of Uax 5,341,084,070.44 as undertaken by them within 14 days.
Counsel for the applicant, from the Bar, prayed the applicant be allowed to deposit 5% of the decretal amount and relied on case law to submit that the
- court had discretion regarding determination of the amount of security for the $20$ due performance of the decree to be deposited by the applicant.
Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) provides that "stay of execution maybe granted by court upon being satisfied that:-
c) Security has been given by the applicant for the due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him or her...."
The applicants in their affidavit in support averred that the applicants are willing to deposit into court security for the due performance of the decree in the form of bank guarantee. The decree referred to indicates a decretal amount of Ugx 5.341,084,070.44/= and the Bank Guarantee the applicants are willing to deposit
is for the due performance of the decree. The law is clear on this aspect and the applicant is willing to comply with the law as stated. The submissions of counsel for the applicants from the Bar praying to deposit 5% of the decretal sum cannot be relied on by this court and appear to be an afterthought.
In the circumstances, the applicants are directed to give security for the due performance of the decree in the sum of Ugx 5,341,084,070.44 as indicated in their affidavit in support.
Since the parties are amenable to the security for the due performance of the decree in the form of a bank guarantee, the applicants should avail the same in the said form within 2months from the date of this Ruling; failure of which execution proceedings may continue.
nhitur
Anna . B. Mugenyi
Judge
a) ...
b) $\ldots$
17<sup>th</sup>.01.2024
Scanned with CamScanner
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.