Wakilii

Ambrose Kagangure v DFCU Bank Limited and Akright Projects Ltd (Civil Suit 388 of 2012)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 76 · 2025 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for compensation and damages arising from eviction from mortgaged property
Decision
Suit dismissed for want of a cause of action

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 High Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for want of a cause of action. The court held that the plaintiff had no interest in the property having sold it to the second defendant and executed a valid power of attorney authorising the second defendant to mortgage the property. The parol evidence rule prevented the plaintiff from contradicting the written sale agreement and power of attorney through oral evidence of rescission. The first defendant lawfully registered its mortgage after paying off the plaintiff's prior mortgage obligation.

Outcome

Suit dismissed for want of a cause of action

Facts

The plaintiff and his wife were registered proprietors of land at Buye, Ntinda. On 1 January 2004, they sold the property to the second defendant for UGX 220,000,000. At the time of sale, the property was mortgaged to Housing Finance Bank. Under the sale agreement, the second defendant was to pay UGX 97,917,052 to Housing Finance Bank to discharge the plaintiff's loan, with the balance payable within 12 months. The plaintiff and his wife remained in possession and executed a power of attorney authorising the second defendant to pledge the property as security for loans. The second defendant obtained a loan from the first defendant, secured by the suit property among others. The first defendant paid off the Housing Finance Bank mortgage and registered its own mortgage. When the second defendant defaulted, the property was sold and the plaintiff was evicted. The plaintiff alleged fraud and sought UGX 3,500,000,000 in damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendants.
  2. Whether the plaintiff had a beneficial interest in the suit property.
  3. If so, who among the defendants conducted the eviction.
  4. Whether the eviction was lawfully conducted.
  5. Whether the plaintiff suffered any loss and harm emanating from his eviction from the suit property.
  6. If so, who among the defendants is liable for the loss.
  7. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed for want of a cause of action.
  • Costs awarded to the first defendant.
  • No costs awarded to the second defendant as it absconded from most of the hearing.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Elements Required
A cause of action requires three elements: that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right has been violated, and that the defendant is liable. A plaint which discloses no cause of action is a nullity and must be rejected.
Evidence — Parol Evidence Rule — Contradiction of Written Agreements
Where the terms of a contract have been reduced to writing, no evidence of any oral agreement shall be admitted to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from its terms, except where fraud, illegality, want of consideration or other invalidating factors are proved.
Contract Law — Rescission — Proof Required
A party alleging rescission of a written contract must produce documentary evidence of the rescission agreement. Correspondence expressing intentions and proposals does not constitute an agreement rescinding a formal written contract.
Land & Property — Power of Attorney — Authority to Mortgage
A valid and unrevoked power of attorney authorising a party to mortgage property confers lawful authority to do so. Where a mortgagee acts under such authority and registers a mortgage, the original proprietor cannot sustain a cause of action for unlawful eviction following default.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Parties Bound by Pleadings
Parties are bound by their own pleadings. Evidence which does not support the pleaded facts or is at variance with the pleaded facts must be ignored. Parties are not allowed during trial to depart from pleadings by adducing evidence extraneous to the pleadings.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Jani Properties Ltd v Dar-es-Salaam City Council [1966] EA 281
  • Struggle (U) Ltd v Pan African Insurance Co Ltd (1990-91) Karl 46
  • Amos Byamukama and Another v Jairess Kompaire (Civil Appeal No. 0042 of 2021)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Ambrose Kagangure v DFCU Bank Limited and Akright Projects Ltd (Civil Suit 388 of 2012) [2025] UGHCCD 76 (20 June 2025)
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.