Ankole Riverline Hotel Limited & Another v Orient Bank Limited & Another (Civil Application 1214 of 2023) [2025] UGCA 20 (29 January 2025)

#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

#### CIVIL APPLICATION NO. I2I4 OF 2023

(Arising from Commercial Court Civil Suit No. 131 of 2014)

## I. ANKOLE RIVERLINE HOTEL LIMITED

#### 2. HYGIN TWONGYEIRWE KURURAGIRE..................... APPLICANTS

#### VERSUS

### 1. ORIENT BANK LIMITED

2. JULIET DUSABE TWONGYEIRWE RESPONDENTS

### RULING OF MARGARET TIBULYA. JA

- <sup>I</sup>. This is a ruling on an application for stay of execution of the decree in High Court Civil Suit No. 131 of 2014, pending the determination of the applicants appeal. It is supported by the affidavit of the 2nd applicant, Hygin Twongyeirwe Kururagire, the managing director of the l'1 applicant' - 2. The grounds ofthe application are that, - a. the applicant was the 2nd defendant in Civil Suit No. 131 of 2014, Juliet Dushabe Twongyeirwe vs. Orient Bank & 2 Others' - b. the judgment in the above Civil Suit was entered against the applicants who were ordered to pay damages of a sum of 10,000,000/: with interest at court rate to the 2nd respondent,, and a sum of 104,195,4151: with 26Yo interest to the l't respondent, and costs ofthe suit. - c. the applicants filed an appeal against the judgment of the High Court. - d. the appeal has a high likelihood ofsuccess, and

- e. the same would be rendered nugatory if a stay of execution is not granted.the applicants will suffer substantial loss unless an order for stay of execution is grented. - f. there is serious threat of execution which would rendered the appeal nugatory, - g. the application has been brought without unreasonable delay - h. the applicant is willing to give security for the performance of the decree. - 3. The l't respondent opposed the application, maintaining that the intended appeal is frivolous and only intended to frustrate the respondent from realizing the fruits of its judgment. Further, that the notice of appeal was filed out of time contrary to rule 76 (2) of this court's rules, and that the applicants have not sought leave of the court to validate the notice. - 4. The applicant does not deny that the judgment in the lower court was delivered on 27'h February 2017 .lt is also not denied that the notice of appeal was filed on 24'h March 201 7, almost a month after the judgment was delivered. - 5. The power of this court to grant orders of stay ofexecution is provided under rule 6 (2) of the rules of this court which provides as follows;

#### Rule 6 (2) (b)

the court may in any civil proceedings where a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with Rule 76 [emphasis added] ofthese rules, order a stay ofexecution, an injunction or stay of proceedings as the court considers just.

6. Rule 76 (2) requires that a notice of appeal should be filed within 14 days from the date ofjudgment. In this case, the notice of appeal was filed almost a nronth alter delivery of the judgment, which renders it incompetent. There is nothing on the record to show that the applicant bothered to have the notice ofappeal validated. This renders this application incompetent.

7. In this result, the application is dismissed with costs to the l't respondent.

Dated, signed, delivered at Kampala ,n\*?\*, alanuary 2025.

q ulva

Justice of Appeal.