High Court reaffirms that an application for an interim stay of execution under Order 43 rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules (SI 71-1) must be based on a competent notice of appeal.

Brief for the case of Heywood Group Ltd and Another v Kaffika Animal Feeds Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 972 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 96 (29 May 2025)

Before: Hon. Lady Justice Dr. Ginamia Melody Ngwatu

Key Issue: Competency of a notice of appeal as a precondition for an interim stay of execution

Representation

The Applicant was represented by Mr. Luwaga Benson of M/s Mwina, Wananda & Co. Advocates; while the respondent was represented by Mr. Kafeero Alexander of Bigirwaruhanga & Atim Advocates.

Introduction

The High Court has reaffirmed that an application for an interim stay of execution under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules (SI 71-1) must be premised on a competent notice of appeal.

In the present case, the Court held that a competent notice of appeal is one that bears the endorsement of the Registrar, in accordance with Rule 76(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions (SI 13-10), which mandates that a notice of appeal be lodged in duplicate with the Registrar of the High Court. Non-compliance with this procedural requirement renders the application incurably defective and liable to be struck out.

Facts

The applicants sought an interim stay of execution under Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 43, Rules 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules (SI 71-1), following a judgment against them in Civil Suit No. 0032/2021.

The respondent had successfully sued for breach of contract relating to unpaid supply of poultry feed, resulting in a decree awarding UGX 69,326,000 plus interest, UGX 20,000,000 in general damages, and taxed costs, bringing the total to UGX 169,338,000.

The applicants argued that there was an imminent threat of execution, including a published notice for auction of their property, and that the stay was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.

Respondent's Objection

The respondent opposed the application on several grounds, including the lack of a supporting affidavit from the 1st applicant, the applicants’ failure to appear during earlier execution proceedings, and the assertion that the applicants had the financial means to satisfy the judgment but had willfully refused to pay.

Court's Determination

The Court emphasized that under Order 43 Rule 4(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and as elaborated in Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v. Eunice Businge, SCCA No. 18 of 1990, an application for interim stay must show:

1. A filed notice of appeal;

2. Substantial loss may result if the stay is not granted;

3. The application was made without unreasonable delay;

4. Security has been offered for due performance of the decree.

   
   

Reaffirming the additional criteria from Kyambogo University v. Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege, C.A. Misc. App. No. 341 of 2013, were also acknowledged, particularly the need to demonstrate a serious or imminent threat of execution, non-frivolous appeal, and disproportionate hardship.

However, the Court held that before considering these factors, it must first be satisfied that there is a competent notice of appeal on record. Citing Osman Kassim Ramthan v. Century Co. Ltd, SCCA No. 35 of 2019, the Court reiterated that a valid notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite.

In this case, the attached notice of appeal lacked the Registrar’s signature and was therefore found to be invalid. The Court concluded that the absence of a competent notice of appeal nullified the basis for the interim application, rendering it incompetent.

Holding

The application for an interim stay of execution was struck out with costs to the respondent due to the absence of a valid notice of appeal.

Implications for Practitioners

1. A notice of appeal must comply with Rule 76 of the Court of Appeal Rules; an unsigned or unendorsed notice is a nullity.

2. Courts will not entertain interim or interlocutory applications premised on procedurally defective appeal notices.

3. Counsel should ensure all foundational documents, particularly notices of appeal, are competently filed and endorsed before pursuing further interlocutory relief.