Baguma Anor v Centenary Bank (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 330 of 2010)
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
Court held that a mortgagee's sale by private treaty was lawful where the mortgage deed expressly provided for such sale without reference to court. The mortgagor's participation in sourcing a buyer and agreeing the sale price constituted implied consent to private treaty sale. Sufficient notice was given through multiple demand letters and newspaper advertisement. The mortgagor cannot challenge a sale as undersold where he himself introduced the buyer and pre-agreed the purchase price.
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; mortgagee's sale upheld as lawful
Facts
On 25 October 2006, the Plaintiffs borrowed UGX 25,000,000 from Centenary Bank and mortgaged their property on Plot 17 Banyu Road, Kigongi, Kabale Municipality as security. The Plaintiffs made some repayments but defaulted. The bank issued demand notices in October and November 2007, recalling the debt. Murambi Auctioneers issued a written demand on 5 January 2008 and advertised the property in Orumuri newspaper on 8 January 2008. On 15 February 2008, the Plaintiff requested additional time to pay, which the bank declined. The Plaintiffs paid UGX 8,500,000 on 30 January 2008 but remained in default. The property was sold on 12 June 2008 to Nyerere Julius for UGX 30,300,000. The Plaintiff himself introduced the buyer to the auctioneer and agreed the price with the buyer beforehand. After deducting the loan balance and auctioneers' costs, the bank remitted UGX 21,127,282 to the Chief Magistrate's Court for distribution to the Plaintiff's creditors as instructed by the Plaintiff.
Issues
- Whether the Defendant sold the mortgaged property lawfully?
- What are the remedies available to the parties in the circumstances?
Orders
- Suit dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Registration of Titles Act
- Mortgage Decree 1974
- Mortgage Act No. 8 of 2009 s.28
- Mortgage Act No. 8 of 2009 s.28(1)(d)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.