Wakilii

Total Seeta Service Station v Stanbic Bank Limited Uganda and Julius Baale (Civil Appeal 165 of 2019)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 173 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First civil appeal from a High Court decision dismissing a suit challenging the sale of mortgaged property
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; the High Court decision upholding the sale of the mortgaged property stands

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed a first appeal against a High Court decision upholding a mortgagee's sale of mortgaged property. On ground one, the court held that the appellant had not pleaded the invalidity of the mortgage, no issue was framed and no evidence was led on it; a party is bound by its pleadings and cannot succeed on a case it never set up, and deciding such an unpleaded matter would breach the right to a fair hearing under Article 28(1), even where an illegality is alleged. Ground one was struck out. On ground two, the court held the ground was too general, failing to specify the evidence challenged, and offended Rule 86(1); it was struck off. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Facts

On or about 11 December 2008, Stanbic Bank extended an overdraft facility of Shs. 150,000,000 to the appellant. The parties executed a mortgage deed under which the appellant's managing director mortgaged his house at Plot 2865, Luwafu, Makindye, Kampala. The appellant defaulted on repayment within the prescribed time. After several demands, the bank instructed auctioneers to advertise the mortgaged property for sale. The appellant asked the bank to halt the sale on the ground that it had applied for an equity release loan from Housing Finance Bank, but the auctioneers proceeded to sell the property to the second respondent. The appellant filed Civil Suit 407 of 2011 in the High Court challenging the sale as unlawful and fraudulent. The High Court found the appellant had failed to prove the sale was unlawful and dismissed the suit. The appellant appealed, arguing the mortgage was invalid and that the trial judge had failed to properly evaluate the evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the appellant's submission that the mortgage was invalid, where the validity of the mortgage had not been pleaded.
  2. Whether the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence, and whether ground 2 was framed with sufficient precision to comply with Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Orders

  • Ground 1 struck out and fails.
  • Ground 2 struck off.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Party bound by pleadings — Case not pleaded cannot be raised or proved at trial or on appeal
A party is bound by its pleadings and cannot succeed on a case it did not plead; where a matter is not raised in the pleadings, no issue is framed on it and no evidence is led on it, the court cannot entertain it.
Constitutional Law — Fair Hearing — Right to be heard — Article 28(1) — Deciding an unpleaded matter
Deciding a case on a matter that was not pleaded and on which no evidence was led infringes the right to a fair hearing under Article 28(1) of the Constitution, and this right must be observed even where an illegality or fraud is alleged.
Civil Procedure — Memorandum of Appeal — Rule 86(1) — Grounds must be concise and specify the points challenged
A ground of appeal that is general and fails to specify which evidence or findings are challenged offends Rule 86(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions and is liable to be struck off.
Civil Procedure — First appeal — Duty of first appellate court to re-evaluate the evidence
On a first appeal the court has a duty to re-appraise and re-evaluate the evidence, whether by affidavit or oral testimony, and draw its own inferences of fact, save as to the manner and demeanour of witnesses where it is guided by the impressions made on the trial judge.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Registration of Titles Act s.132
  • Registration of Titles Act s.147
  • Registration of Titles Act s.148
  • Registration of Titles Act s.116
  • Registration of Titles Act s.117
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 30(1)(a)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 86(1)

Cases cited (24)

  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Fredrick J. K. Zaabute u Oient Bank Limited, ULR [2007] Vol I page 98
  • Makula Internotional u Cardinal Nsubuga, 1982 HCB 11
  • Farida Nantale v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 286 of 2014)
  • Fang Min v Belex Tours and Travel Limited (SCCA No. 6 of 2013, consolidated with Crane Bank Limited v Belex Tours and Travel Limited, Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2014)
  • Lweza Clays Limited v Kizito Lutwama Moussa v Tropical Bank Limited (SCCA No. 15 of 2018)
  • Interfreight Forwarders (U) Limited v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1992)
  • Julius Rwabinumi v Hope Bahimisomwe (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009)
  • Tanganyika Farmers Association Ltd. u Ungamuezi Deuelopment Corporation, [1960] EA 620
  • Yosamu Kawule u Entsania I1977l HCB 735
  • Sitefano Baraba u Haji Edirisa, [1977] HCB 137
  • Uga Chick Poultry Breeders Limited v Tadjin Kara (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1997)
  • Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty (Election Petition No. 4 of 2009)
  • Commissioner General, URA v William Mukasa (SCCA No. 4 of 2014)
  • Moses Jim Jjague u Standard Chartered Bank, HCCT-00-CC-CS-0375 of 2OO4
  • Cuckmere Brick Co. Limited u Mutual Finance and otlers, [197l] 2 ALL ER 633
  • Mubiru u Uganda Credit and Sauings Limited, [978] HCB 1O9
  • Co-operatiue Bank Limited (in liquidation) u Shell Kasese, HCCS 140 of 2005
  • Agatha Kalanzi v Milly Katongole and Hope Katongole (Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2019)
  • National Insurance Corporation v Pelican Services (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2003)
  • Arim Felix Clive v Stanbic Bank (U) Limited (Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2013)
  • Sukulon Ali v Augustine Kapkulongongo and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 717 of 2012)
  • Jennifer Nsubuga v Michael Mukundane and Another (Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2018)
  • Celtel Uganda Limited v Karungi Susan (Civil Appeal No. 0073 of 2013)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.