Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd & Ors v International Credit Bank Ltd(in liquidation) (Misc.App.No. 379 of 2003) [2003] UGHC 80 (13 November 2003)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f36\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f37\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f39\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f40\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f41\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f42\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f43\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f44\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 \styrsid9903783 Normal (Web);}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1659213\rsid5401937\rsid5664725\rsid6630025\rsid9896687\rsid9903783\rsid9969617\rsid10558352\rsid10961140\rsid10962743\rsid11818392\rsid14880931} {\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA }{\author Administrator}{\operator jchemeri}{\creatim\yr2009\mo6\dy10\hr3\min34}{\revtim\yr2009\mo6\dy11\min11}{\version3}{\edmins108}{\nofpages9}{\nofwords2664}{\nofchars15187} {\*\company JSI}{\nofcharsws17816}{\vern24689}}\paperw11906\paperh16838 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\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\rsidroot9903783\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0\sectd \linex0\headery708\footery708\colsx708\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid14880931\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\pararsid6630025 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 { \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9896687 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 (COMMERCIAL COURT) \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 379 OF 2003 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 (Arising out of HCCS No. 132 of 1998)}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line 1. TROPICAL COMMODITIES SUPPLIERS LTD }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85APPLICANTS}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line 2. COUNTRY AGENCIES LTD APPLICANTS \line 3. ATEKER EJALU \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 VERSUS \line INTERNATIONAL CREDIT BANK LTD}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 RESPONDENT \line (IN LIQUIDATION) \line BEFORE: }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAMES OGOOLA }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025 \par }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025\charrsid6630025 }{\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 RULING }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140\charrsid10961140 1.}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 The Applicants seek a court order to stay execution of this Court\rquote s judgment pending the Applicants\rquote appeal to the Court of }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025\charrsid6630025 Appeal}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025 .}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 The background to this application is quite convoluted. A consent judgment was entered against the Applicants for Shs.200m/-. The Applicants proceeded to pay a part of that decretal amount}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025 -}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 to the tune of Shs.72m/-. Thereafter, the Applicants appear to have totally changed their mind one hundred and eighty degrees around. They applied to Court for a review of that consent judgment, on the grounds that their lawyer had no instructions to enter a consent judgment. On 21/05/03, this Court refused to review the consent judgme}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid6630025 nt, whereupon the Applicants fil}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 ed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of this Court not to review the consent judgment. It is in these circumstances that the Applicants now come to this Court seeking a stay of execution against the consent judgment. On 22/07/03, the Registrar of this Court granted an interim stay of execution pending the co}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 nclusion of this application. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \par 2. It is noteworthy that the application was bro ught under the former section 101 (now section 98, Cap. 71) of the Civil Procedure Act. This is noteworthy in as much as the Applicants saw it fit not to apply under 0.39, rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Instead, the Applicants resorted to the inh erent powers of this }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 Court under section 98 of Cap. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 71. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that 0.39 is the applicable law on the point; and that that Order establishes three basic criteria for applications of this kind. In support of his submission, learned counsel cited the case of }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Uganda Bottlers Ltd, S. Ct. Civil Application No. 25 of 1995. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 In that application, the Supreme Court held that:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 \par }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \'93The matter [of stay of execution] is dearly gover}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 ned by 0.39 r 4(3) of the Civil }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Procedu}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 re Code (si}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 c).\'94}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 \par }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Similarly, the Court of Appeal delivered an identical decision in }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 DFCU }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Bank Ltd v. Dr. Ann Persis Nakat}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 e Lusejjere, Civil Application }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 No. 29 of 2003 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 affirming the app}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 licability of 0.39, r. 4(3) to }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 applications for stay of execution.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line 3.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 While the above must be the law \emdash coming as it did from the highest courts in the land \emdash the matter is not entirely without difficulty. In particular, as the heading to that Order clearly indicates, 0.39 applies only to }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \'93Appeals to the }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140\charrsid6630025 High}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Court.\'94 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Indeed, rule 1 (1) of that Order states as much. It says:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 \par }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 \'93Ever}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 y appeal }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 to the }{ \i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140\charrsid6630025 High}{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Court }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 signed by the appellant or his }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 advocate and }{ \i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 presented to the court }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 or to such officer as it shall appoint in that behalf\'94[emphasis }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 added]. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \par 4. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Similarly, rules 2,4,5,8,9,10,12,16,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,26,27,28,29,30 \line and 31 of Order 39 make it abs}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 olutely clear that the appeals }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 contemplated in that Order are only }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 appeals to the High Court from }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 lower courts; and not appeals from the H}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 igh Court itself to the higher }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 courts. After all, the higher courts have}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10961140 their own rules. The question }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 therefore remains as to whether the rules in 0.39 are appropriate for \line appeals (such as the appeal lodged i}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 n the instant matter) from the }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Hi}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 gh Court to the Court of Appeal \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 5. The answer to the above question would}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 on the face of it appear to }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 have been firmly adjudicated and s}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 ettled once and for all by the Supreme Court itself in }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye, S. Ct. Civil A}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 pplication No. 18 of }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 1990. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 In that }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 application, the Court first dealt with }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 a }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 careful analysis of the different \line provisions of the Civil Procedure Act which provide for appeals from or \line to the High Court \emdash namely: \line \bullet Section 68, which provides for appeals from original decrees and orders of the High Court to the [then] Supreme Court (now Court of Appeal); \line \bullet Section 74, which provides for appeals from appellate decrees of the High Court to the [then] Supreme Court; \line \bullet Section 77, which provides for appeals from orders given under original jurisdiction in a number of stated instances as of right, and subject to the Civil Procedure Rules. \line \bullet Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, whose combined effect with sections 68 and 77 above is to provide for appeals as of right from certain orders, and appeals with leave in the case of other orders.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392

\par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line 6. After setting forth the above lucid analysis, their Lordships of the \line Supreme Court then sta}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 ted quite categorically that:

\par }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \'93There is no provision in any of the legislation for a stay of execution, and when one looks at Order }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 XXXIX }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 one finds with some surprise that those rules only govern appeals the High Court and not }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 from }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 the High Court. This is made more poignant because there are the usual Rules concerning a stay of execution relating to appeals the High Court,\'94 }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 \par }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 7. Accordingly, the omission of a specific Rule in this behalf is a glaring lacuna in the law. It was seen as a problem by the Supreme Court itself. In this regard, their Lordships vented their frustration thus:}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 \par }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \bullet \'93Why was provision not made for a stay of execution in \line appeals from the High Court? The main reason seems to have been the statuto}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 ry power of granting a stay of }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 execution given to the Supreme Court in Rule 5(2)(b) of the }{ \i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Court of Appeal Rules, }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 In that case, why make }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 provision for the High Court to hear }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392\charrsid6630025 applications}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 first in Rule 41?\'94}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 \par }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line Had the legislation wishe}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 d to make provision for a stay }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 of execution in the High C}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 ourt that could have been done as U}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 JJA}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 GAR SINGH}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 v RUNDA COFFEE ESTATES LTD }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 (1966) }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 EA 263 will illustrate, s}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 uch provision having been made }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 in Kenya. For some reason similar provision was not made in Uganda. It is also significant that power to grant a stay o}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid11818392 f execution is given to the High}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Court in cases of appeals to the High Court [but not from the }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10558352\charrsid6630025 High}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Court].\'94}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10558352 \par }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 8. The one firm conclusion to be drawn from the above is that 0.39 does not apply to appeals }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid5401937 from}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 the High Court to the higher courts, but only to appeals from the lower courts}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid5401937 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid5401937 to}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 the High Court. The Supreme Court has recognized this anomaly in the}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10558352 statutory law of the land. It }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 is to be emphasised, however, that the anomaly or lacuna exists only in one respect (i.e. in the statutory rules of procedure only). Otherwise, as so ably stated by WAMBUZI P. (as he then was) in }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Mugenyi & Company Advocates v National Insurance Corporation, S. Ct. Civil Application No 13/84:}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5401937 \par }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \'93It is well established that the High Court has inherent jurisdiction to stay any of its orders, see }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5401937 Joanita Kaqgwa v Olive Ameli a KawaIya-Kagg}{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 wa }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5401937\charrsid6630025 administration}{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 }{ \i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5401937\charrsid6630025 Cause}{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 No. 21 of }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid5401937 1972 (1972}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 ) }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5401937 L/LR 129; tar Ujagar }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd 1966 EA 263. \'94 }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line 9. To fill the statutory lacuna then, the Supreme Court in }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Kyazze\rquote s case }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 (supra) }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 proceeded to enunciate cert}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5664725 ain procedures, principles and }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 practices, as follows:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5664725 \par }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \'93The practice that this }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5664725 Court should adopt, is that in }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 general }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5664725\charrsid6630025 application}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 for a stay should be made informally to the judge who decided the case when judgment is \line delivered. The judge may direct that a formal motion be presented on notice (}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5664725 Order XL VIII rule 1.), after }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 notice of appeal has been filed. He may in the meantime grant a temporary stay fo}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5664725 r this to be done. The parties }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 asking for a stay should be prepared to meet the conditions set out in Order XXXIX Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure \line Rules. The temporary application may be }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 ex parte. }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line If the application is refused, the parties may then apply to the Supreme Court under Rule 5(2)(b) of the }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Court of }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid5664725\charrsid6630025 Appeal}{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Rules }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 where again they should be prepared to \line meet conditions similar to those set out in Order XXXIX Rule 4(3).\'94}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \par 10. The above are rules of practice. Indeed, even though they are derived from 0.39, they are only rules of practice. They are not a statutory edict or enactment. That being the case, it is extremely perplexing then that the same Supreme Court in the }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Kampala Bottlers }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 case }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 (supra) }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \emdash which was heard and decided in 1995 (i.e. some 5 years after the }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Kyazze }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 case) \emdash came out boldly to declare quite emphatically that: \line }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \'93The }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1659213 matter is c/early governed by O.}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 39 r 4(3) of the}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1659213 Civil Procedure Code (sic).\'94 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 11. To compound matters, the }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Kampala Bottlers }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 case, as well as the }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Lusejjere }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 case }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 (supra) }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 went even }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 a }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 step further to categorically assert that 0.39 4(3)(c) requires the Applicants to deposit in court security \'93for costs\'94 only \emdash yet the plain, unequivocal language of that paragraph (C) requires the Applicants to give: \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1659213 \'93 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 . }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1659213 ..}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1659213\charrsid6630025 Security,}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon him.\'94 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 [emphasis added] \line 12. Thus the above two Supreme Court decisions give rise to a patent conflict and contradiction. Either 0.39 applies (as contended in }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Kampala Bottlers), }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 or it does not (as positively affirmed in }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Kyazze). }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Moreover, either the security required to be deposited in court during a stay of execution i s only security for costs (as asserted in }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Kampala Bottlers), }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 or it is security of the whole decretal amount (as pla}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1659213 inly stated in 0.39 r 4 (3) (c). \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 13. It is quite evident, given all the above }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1659213\charrsid6630025 difficulties that}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 the position on these points is badly and u rgently in need of a clear restatement of the law. This could possibly be done by the Supreme Court itself, at the earliest available opportunity, in order to straighten out this area of our jurisprudence. Conversely, the Civil Procedure Rules could be ex pressly amended (at the behest of the }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1659213\charrsid6630025 Honorable}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 the Chief Justice, \line through the Rules Committee). The aim of such an amendment would not only be to iron out the rough edges discussed above, but also to generally enrich and update this area of our Rules of Procedure. In this connection, I wholeheartedly endorse the sentiments expressed by my brother, LUGAYIZI J, in the similar ruling that his Lordship delivered only one week ago in }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Tahar Fourati Hotels Ltd v Nile Hotel (Int\rquote l) Ltd, High }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Court }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Misc. Application No. 614 of 2003, }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 to the effect that the Rules Committee should take its responsibility to attend to this clear gap in our Rules of Civil Procedure.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1659213 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 14. Be that as it may, this Court must abide by the above decisions of the Supreme Court and of the C ourt of Appeal, which have established three conditions for the determination of applications for stay of execution, namely:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1659213 \par }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 (a) that substantial loss may result to the }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1659213\charrsid6630025 Applicants}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 unless the order of stay is made, \line (b) that the }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1659213\charrsid6630025 application}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 has been made without unreasonable delay, and \line (c) that security for costs has been given by the }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1659213\charrsid6630025 Applicants}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 .}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid1659213 \par }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 15. In the instant application, the Applicants averred that substantial loss may result if execution proceeds in as much as the appeal would be rendered nugatory. As the Court of Appeal emphasized in }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Lusejjere\rquote s }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 case }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 (supra): \line \'93 It Is the paramount duty of a Court to which an application for stay of execution pe}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617 nding an appeal is made to see }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 that appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory: }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617 See }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Wilson v Church (1879) 12 Ch. D 454.\'94}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 In this regard, the Applicants noted that the Respondent, who is the judgment creditor, is already in liquidation. Therefore, if }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617\charrsid6630025 the entire}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 decretal amount is now recovered through execution of the decree, and if the Applicants then succeed on appeal, they would find it extremely difficult to recover that money from the liquidation. I wholly agree that by reason of the Respondent Bank closure for solvency and its ongoing liquidation the situation is rendered dicy for the Applicants. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line 16. Nonetheless, the Applicants\rquote difficulties in recouping their money from the liquidated bank is only one consideration. The other consideration is whether the loss, if any, arising from those difficulties would be substantial. Hence, the question needs to be asked as to what in law constitutes \'93substantial loss\'94. In my view, substantial loss need not be determined by a mathematical formula whose computation yields any particular amount. Indeed, }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Jowitt\rquote s Dictionary of English Law (2\rquote Edn.) Vol. 2, p.1713, }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 carefully defines the analogous concept of \'93 substantial damages\'94 as: \line }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \'93damages which represent }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 actual loss, whether great or \line small, as opposed to nominal damaqes. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \'93[emphasis added]}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 17. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 In similar vein, }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Black\rquote s Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) at p.1428, }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 defines the word \'93substantial\'94 as, inter alia:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617 \par }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \'93of real worth and importance, not seeming or imaginary or illusive }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 - }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Seglem }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617 v Skelly Oil Co., 145 Kan. 216 }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 P.2d 553, 554. }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Something worthwhile as }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617\charrsid6630025 distinguished}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 from something without value or merely nominal }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \emdash }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 In Re Krause\rquote s Estate, 173 Wash. 1}{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617\charrsid6630025 , 21}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 P. 2d 268.\'94 }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617 \par }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 The conclusion is inescapable. Substantial loss does not represent any particular amount or size. It cannot be }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617 quantified by any particular }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 mathematical formula. Rather, it is a qualitative concept. It r efers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value, as distinguished from a loss without value or a loss that is merely nominal.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 In the light of the above definitions, and given the fact that the \line Respondent is in liquidation, there can be no doubt but that the \line Applicants are likely to suffer substantial loss if execution of the decree \line is not stayed pending disposal of the appeal.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 18. As regards the criterion of delay, I am equally satisfied that the Applicants have been extremely diligent in lodging the appeal, and in prosecuting this application. The Court\rquote s ruling (in Misc Application No. 67/2002) against which the Applicants have now }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617\charrsid6630025 appealed}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 was delivered on 21/05/03. The Applicants then applied for and were granted an interim stay of execution on 22/07/03. Thereafter, the appeal was filed on 30/09/03 as Civil Appeal No. 96/2003, and was promptly served on the Respondent\rquote s counsel. I am thus satisfied that the application has been made without unreasonable delay.}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line 19. That leaves only the third criterion \emdash namely payment of security. The Applicants did not offer any security. The Respondent for its part sought security of Shs.137. Sm/-, representing the entire balance of the decretal amount. Here again, as discussed elsewhere in this Ru ling, we are faced with yet another difficulty from the }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Kampala Bottlers }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 case }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9969617 (supr}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 a,). }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 In that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court talked in terms of \'93security for costs\'94. Similarly, in the }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Lusejjere }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 case }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 (supra) }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 the Court of Appeal made the categ orical statement that:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 \par }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \lquote }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid10962743 Under Order 39 r 4(3) of the CPR}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 an }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743\charrsid6630025 application}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 for stay }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 of execution pending an appeal must be accompanied by pa}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 yments of security for costs.\'94 }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \par Yet, 0.39 r 4(3) talks }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743\charrsid6630025 generally}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 in terms of \'93security\'94, without qualification or limitation as to \'93costs\'94 , etc. Indeed, 0.39 r. 4(3}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743\charrsid6630025 ) (}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 c) requires payment of}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \'93}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743\charrsid6630025 Security}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 \'94 }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 by the Applicants }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 for the due }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743\charrsid6630025 performance}{ \i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743\charrsid6630025 him}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 .\'94 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 [emphasis added]}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line 20. The above quoted language seems to embrace security for the entire decretal amount \emdash rather than merely security for the costs of the appeal. This conclusion is fortified further by the existence of such other rules (particularly rule 9 of the same 0.39) which explicitly confer on the Court a discretionary power to }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \'93demand from the appellant }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 security for the costs of the appeal\rquote }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 It is quite evident then that the security mentioned elsewhere (especially in rules 4 and 5 of that same Order) cannot be security for costs. Yet their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Kampala Bottlers }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 case }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 (supra) }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 categorically held that: \line }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \'93Under [0.39, r. 4(3)] the }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743\charrsid6630025 Applicants}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 must show }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line (a)... \line (b)... \line (c) that }{\i\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 security for costs }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 has been given by the }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743\charrsid6630025 Applicants}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 .\'94 \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 [emphasis added]}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line 21. Again, regarding this particular difficulty, this Court must abide by the holding of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, in the instant case, for the }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743\charrsid6630025 application}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 to succeed the Applicants must be willing to give security for costs \emdash rather than security for the entire decretal amount as pressed by the Respondent\rquote s learned counsel. In my view that requirement is eminently more just. Insist}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 ence on a policy or practice \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 that mandates security for the entire decretal amount is likely to stifle possible appeals \emdash especially in a Commerci al Court, such as ours, where the underlying transactions typically tend to lead to colossal decretal amounts. In the}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 circumstances of this case a fi}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 gure of about 10% of the decretal amount (of Shs.200m/-) would appear to be quite adequate \emdash if the Applicants are willing and ready to pay it.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line 22. The application is hereby granted, on condition that the Applicants must pay into Court a total sum of Shs.20m/- as security for the costs of his appeal. That amount is to be paid into this Court not later than 14/12/2003. In the meantime, the inte}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 rim stay of execution that was }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 ( granted by the Registrar of this Court will continue in force (until that date). \line }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Ordered accordingly. \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 James Ogoola \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 }{ \ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 JUDGE }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 13/11/03 \line }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT, BEFORE: }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line Masembe Kanyerezi, Esq \emdash Counsel for the Respondent \line Mr. At}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 eker Ejalu 3rd Applicant, and 1}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid10962743\charrsid10962743 st}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10962743 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 Applicant\rquote s Managing Director \line J. M. Egetu \emdash Court Clerk \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9896687 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 James Ogoola \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9896687 }{\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 JUDGE }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9896687 13/11/03 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid6630025 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid9903783\charrsid6630025 \par }}