Share
The Co-operative Bank Ltd v Kabaco(u) Ltd (Misc.App.No.73 OF 2003 ) (Misc.App.No. 73 of 2003) [2003] UGHC 81 (14 March 2003)
- Citation
- [2003] UGHC 81
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Case number
- Misc.App.No. 73 of 2003
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Case number
- Misc.App.No. 73 of 2003
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
02
Material facts
Parties
The Cooperative Bank Ltd (in receivership/statutory liquidation)
Applicant Counsel: Mr. AdrikoKabaco (U) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Mr. TusasiraAmounts and remedies
- Amount Claimed by Respondent in Original Suit: UGX 270,160,475
- Amount Awarded to Respondent by Court: UGX 187,820,475
- Interest Rate Awarded: 20
- Amount Claimed by Applicant Against Respondent: UGX 301,416,281
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has shown good cause and special circumstances to justify a stay of execution pending appeal.
- 02
Whether the applicant has provided sufficient evidence of an intended cross-appeal and its prospects of success.
- 03
Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution in the absence of security for costs.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that it intended to cross-appeal against the High Court's decision in Civil Suit No. 452 of 2001 and that releasing the securities to the respondent would cause substantial loss. The application was made under Order 48 rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicant requested a stay of execution pending disposal of the intended appeal and cross-appeal, and for costs to be provided for.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicant failed to show good cause for the stay and did not provide evidence of an intended cross-appeal or its chances of success. The respondent noted that the applicant is in liquidation and has not provided security for costs. The respondent requested dismissal of the application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Somali Democratic Republic v A. S. Treon Civil Application No. 11 of 1988 (Supreme Court)
A stay of execution should be granted only if the court is satisfied that there is good cause and special circumstances to justify such an order.
- 02
Order 39 rule 3, Civil Procedure Rules
Order 39 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies only to appeals to the High Court, not to appeals to the Court of Appeal.
- 03
General principles of stay of execution under Ugandan law
The applicant must provide evidence of an intended appeal or cross-appeal and its prospects of success to justify a stay of execution.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- Order 39 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not applicable to appeals to the Court of Appeal.
- The applicant's assertion of an intended cross-appeal was a mere assertion without evidentiary backing.
Court disposition
application dismissed
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
High 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.
High Court of Uganda
Judgment
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f148\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f149\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f151\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f152\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f153\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f154\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f155\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f156\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph
Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid10303055 Normal (Web);}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid1282469310\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid-2034331352 \'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li420\jclisttab\tx420\lin420 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807577\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;} \fi-360\li1140\jclisttab\tx1140\lin1140 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807579\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li1860\jclisttab\tx1860\lin1860
} {\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807567\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li2580\jclisttab\tx2580\lin2580 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0 \leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807577\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li3300\jclisttab\tx3300\lin3300 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807579\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li4020\jclisttab\tx4020\lin4020 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \leveltemplateid134807567\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li4740\jclisttab\tx4740\lin4740 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807577 \'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5460\jclisttab\tx5460\lin5460 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807579\'02\'08.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;} \fi-180\li6180\jclisttab\tx6180\lin6180 }{\listname ;}\listid1303534641}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid1303534641\listoverridecount0\ls1}}{\*\pgptbl
{\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid9000887\rsid10246731\rsid10303055 \rsid12989856\rsid15410786}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA }{\author Administrator}{\operator jchemeri}{\creatim\yr2009\mo6\dy14\hr22\min59}{\revtim\yr2009\mo6\dy14\hr22\min59}{\version2}{\edmins3}{\nofpages3} {\nofwords885}{\nofchars5051}{\*\company JSI}{\nofcharsws5925}{\vern24689}}\paperw11906\paperh16838 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800 \dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1\jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot10303055\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0\sectd \linex0\headery708\footery708\colsx708\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid10246731\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2 \pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta
)}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9000887 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 { \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12989856 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12989856 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12989856 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.73 OF 2003 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12989856 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 (ARISING FROM H. C. C. S. NO. 452 OF
2001)}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 THE COOPERAT}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12989856 IVE BANK LTD) \line (IN RECEIVERSHIP}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 )...}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 ...............................}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 . }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 APPLICANT/}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 DEFENDANT \line STATUTORY LIQUIDATION) }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 VERSUS}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 KABACO (U) LTD}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85..}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786
\line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 RULING }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 This ruling is in respect of an application for the following Court orders,}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (a)\tab}}\pard \s15\ql \fi-360\li420\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \jclisttab\tx420\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin0\lin420\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9000887 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 that execution of the Decree and order for the return of the securities held by the Applicant/Defendant in High Court Civil Suit No. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 452}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 of 2001 be stayed pending the disposal of the intended appeal and cross appeal;}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (b)\tab}
}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 that costs of the application be provided for.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid9000887 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 \line The applicant made the application by}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 way of Notice of Motion under }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 Order 48 rules 1 and 3 of the CPR and section 101 o}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 f the Civil Procedure }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 Act. The application was accompanied by an affidavit that Mr. Polly \par Ndyarugahi (a Bank of Uganda co-ordinator in charge of liquidating the applicant) swore on 10th February 2003.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 In reply to the above matter, Mr. Evas Tumwebaze who is a director in the respondent swore an affidavit dated }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 4}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid9000887\charrsid9000887 th}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 March 2003.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15410786
\par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 The background to the application is very briefly as follows. The respondent was a customer of the applicant. Sometime in year 2001 the respondent filed High Court civil Suit No. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid9000887 452}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 of 2001 against the appl}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 icant and claimed a sum of shs}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid9000887 270}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887\charrsid9000887 , 160,475}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 as money it had deposited with the applicant but the applicant had lost under dubious circumstances. The applicant }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887\charrsid15410786 who}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 held various securities, that the respondent had given it on bo rrowing money, denied the above claim. Instead, it averred that the respondent owed it shs. 301,416,281/=. Subsequently, Court tried the matter and determined it in favour of the respondent. It awarded the respondent shs. 187,820,475/=, with interest at 2 0%
with effect from June 2001, as money the applicant owed it. Court further ordered the applicant to release the respondent\rquote s securities forthwith. Although the respondent won the above suit, it was not quite satisfied with the part of Court \rquote s judgment which related to the award of money. Therefore, on 12th June 2002 it lodged a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal. The respondent also sou}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 ght to enforce the part of the }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 judgment relating to the release of its securities, but this was without success b ecause the applicant refused to release the said securities. For that reason, the respondent decided to seek to enforce t}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 he above order by applying to arr}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 est Mr. Polly Ndyarugahi who }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 seems to have custody of the sai}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 d securities. It is because of the respondent\rquote s move in that respect that the applicant made the application that is the subject of this ruling.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 At the time of hearing the application
Mr. Adriko represented the applicant while Mr. Tusasira represented the respondent. In essence, Mr. Adriko submit ted that the applicant which diligently filed the application needed the order because it intended to cross appeal against the learned Judge\rquote s decision in High Court Civil Suit No. 452 of 2001. He further pointed out that if the applicant released the securities to the respondent, the applicant would suffer substantial loss. He, therefore, prayed Court to grant the application.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 Mr. Tusasira opposed the application and submitted that the applicant did not show good cause why the application should be grante d. The applicant did not prove that it intended to cross appeal. There is even no evidence on record of what it intends to cross appeal about; and the chances of success of the intended cross }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 appeal are unknown. It is in }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 liquidation and has provided no security for costs. Mr. Tusasira therefore prayed that Court should dismiss the application. \line It was clear at the time of arguing the application that counsel for both parties were not agreed as to the law applicable to the situation at hand. It seemed Mr . Adriko was of
the view that Order 39 rule 3 of the CPR was the relevant law. However, Court thinks otherwise for it is plain from the heading of the above Order and the contents thereof that the whole Order is about matters which are the subject of }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 \'93appeal to the High Court\'94. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 Needless to say, the matter at hand is connected with an appeal to the Court of Appeal. It follows, therefore, that Order 39 rule 3 of the }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 CPR }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 does not apply to it.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 Be that as it may, in the case of }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 Somali }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 Democratic Republic v A. S. Treon Civil Application }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 No. }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 11 of 1988 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 the Supreme Court held that a stay of execution should be granted if
}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 a }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 court is satisfied that there is good cause to do so and that there are special circumstances to justify such course. The vital question to answe r now is whether the applicant has shown that there is good cause to grant the stay of execution and that there are special circumstances to justify that course? Quite frankly, Court thinks that the applicant has not proved any of the vital things it is r equired}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 prove under the above l}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 aw. Indeed, Court agrees with Mr}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 . Tusasira that even the assertion that the appli}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 cant intends to cross-appeal }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 is a mere assertion. It is not backed up by any evidence on record. The applicant also provided no evidence in it s affidavit to the Notice of Motion to show that its alleged cross-appeal is likely to succeed; and it showed no special circumstances to justify the grant of the stay. In the result the application must fail; and it is hereby dismissed with costs.
\line Read before: At }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 9.25 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 a.m.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 \line Mr. Adriko for Applicant \line Mr. Tusasira for Respondent \line Mr. Sewanyana - Court Clerk \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 E. S. Lugayizi}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid12989856 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 (Judge) \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9000887 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10303055\charrsid15410786 14/3/2003 \par \par }}
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.