Wakilii

Crane Bank Limited (In Receivership) v Sudhir & Another (Civil Application 32 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2021] UGSC 17 · 2021 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the Supreme Court for an interlocutory injunction pending the determination of a civil appeal
Decision
Application for an injunction pending appeal dismissed with costs; Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2020 remains pending

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's application for an interlocutory injunction pending appeal. It held that the appeal had no likelihood of success because the lower courts had dismissed the underlying suit on the clear and plain wording of section 96(ii) of the Financial Institutions Act, which bars proceedings being commenced or continued against — and, by parity of reasoning, by — a financial institution under receivership. The applicant had shown no irreparable damage, as Bank of Uganda remained in control of the applicant and any harm by the 1st respondent could be compensated in money; the appeal could therefore not be rendered nugatory. The balance of convenience did not favour the applicant, and the application was wrongly brought against the 2nd respondent.

Facts

Crane Bank Limited (in receivership) sued the 1st respondent and Meera Investments Ltd in the High Court Commercial Division (Civil Suit No. 493 of 2017) for recovery of allegedly misappropriated money and delivery of certificates of title to 48 properties. Bank of Uganda had placed the applicant under statutory management on 20 October 2016 and under receivership on 20 January 2017 under the Financial Institutions Act. The defendants successfully applied to dismiss the suit for lack of locus standi, no cause of action and being barred in law; the High Court dismissed it and the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that receivership had ended on 20 January 2018. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2020) and brought this application seeking injunctions restraining the 1st respondent from taking control of, or registering resolutions in respect of, the applicant, and restraining the 2nd respondent (Uganda Registration Services Bureau) from registering any such resolutions, pending the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether new averments introduced by the applicant in the affidavit in rejoinder should be severed and disregarded.
  2. Whether the intended appeal has a likelihood of success or raises a prima facie case.
  3. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable damage, or the appeal be rendered nugatory, if the injunction is not granted.
  4. Where the balance of convenience lies.
  5. Whether the application was properly brought against the 2nd respondent.

Orders

  • New averments introduced in the affidavit in rejoinder are severed and disregarded in determining the application.
  • The application is dismissed as against the 2nd respondent.
  • The application is dismissed with costs.

Key headnotes

Statutory Interpretation — Plain Meaning Rule — Clear and Unambiguous Language
Where the language of a statute is clear and plain, there is no need for interpretation by the courts; to do otherwise would be to legislate under the guise of interpretation.
Banking & Finance — Receivership — Effect of section 96(ii) Financial Institutions Act on Litigation
Section 96(ii) of the Financial Institutions Act bars any other proceedings, execution or legal process being commenced or continued against a financial institution under receivership; correspondingly, a financial institution under receivership cannot itself commence an action, since a party that cannot be sued should not be permitted to sue.
Banking & Finance — Receivership — Duration under section 95(1) Financial Institutions Act
Receivership of a financial institution under section 95(1) of the Financial Institutions Act lasts twelve months and, the provision being couched in mandatory terms, expires by operation of law on the lapse of that period.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Injunctions — Principles for Grant Pending Appeal
An applicant for an injunction pending appeal must establish that the appeal has a likelihood of success or a prima facie right of appeal, and that irreparable damage will be suffered or the appeal rendered nugatory if relief is refused; only where neither is established does the court consider the balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Injunctions — Meaning of Irreparable Damage
An injury is irreparable only where it cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages; if a loss can be calculated in monetary terms there is no irreparable injury and refusal of an injunction is proper.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Scope of Affidavit in Rejoinder
An affidavit in rejoinder must provide specific responses to the affidavit in reply and cannot introduce new aspects requiring a response; any new averments it contains shall be severed and given no credence.

Legislation cited (20)

  • Financial Institutions Act s.87(3)
  • Financial Institutions Act s.88(1)(a)
  • Financial Institutions Act s.88(1)(b)
  • Financial Institutions Act s.89
  • Financial Institutions Act s.94
  • Financial Institutions Act s.95(1)
  • Financial Institutions Act s.96
  • Financial Institutions Act s.96(ii)
  • Financial Institutions Act s.99
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.23
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.42
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 r.43
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.35(2)(a)
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.35(2)(b)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 11
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 29
  • Companies Act

Cases cited (13)

  • Paul Kamya v Kampala District Land Board and Another (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2013)
  • John Bwiza v Patrick Yowasi Kadama (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2018)
  • Lukwago v KCCA & Others (Civil Application No. 6 of 2014)
  • Hon. Ssekikubo & 3 Others v Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Akankwasa Damian v Uganda (Constitutional Application No. 7 & 9 of 2011)
  • Nsereko v Bank of Uganda (Civil Application No. 13 of 2009)
  • Sulaiman Muwonge Lubega v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 7 of 2012)
  • Baryayanga v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 2 of 2013) [2015] UGCC 1
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
  • National Enterprise Corporation v Mukisa Foods Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1998)
  • National Housing and Construction Corporation v Kampala District Land Board & Another (Civil Application No. 6 of 2002)
  • Nabukera v Kusasira (Election Petition Appeal No. 67 of 2016) [2017] UGCA 52
  • Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority v Meera Investments Limited (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2007)
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.