Wakilii

Bank of Africa Uganda Ltd v Apollo Wensi Arinanye (Miscellaneous Cause 125 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 153 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for vacant possession and eviction under Section 23 of the Mortgage Act following default on residential mortgage loan
Decision
Applicant granted vacant possession and eviction order; Respondent to vacate mortgaged property

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 granted vacant possession and eviction to the mortgagee bank following the mortgagor's default on a residential mortgage loan. The court held that Section 23 of the Mortgage Act provides a standalone statutory remedy for possession once the statutory notices have been served and cure periods have lapsed. The existence of a pending substantive suit challenging the mortgage's validity does not bar the mortgagee's independent right to possession, as a possession order addresses only occupancy status and does not resolve underlying legal claims.

Outcome

Applicant granted vacant possession and eviction order; Respondent to vacate mortgaged property

Facts

On 26 July 2022, Bank of Africa Uganda Ltd extended a residential mortgage loan of UGX 260,000,000 to Apollo Wensi Arinanye, secured by property at Busiro Block 401 Plot 2092 at Bwebajja. The mortgage deed was executed on 28 July 2022 and registered on 13 September 2022. The Respondent defaulted on repayment obligations. On 10 July 2024, the Bank issued a Notice of Default under Section 18 of the Mortgage Act, demanding payment of UGX 250,680,151 within 45 working days. On 7 August 2024, the Respondent wrote a handwritten letter admitting his indebtedness and promising to pay UGX 20,000,000 by end of August 2024 and clear remaining arrears by the second week of September 2024. The Respondent failed to rectify the default. On 30 October 2024, the Bank issued a Notice to Take Possession. As of 13 November 2025, the outstanding debt had increased to UGX 355,815,313. The Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 02 of 2025 at the High Court in Entebbe challenging the validity of the mortgage and alleging illegal interest and fraud. The Respondent's prior application for a temporary injunction to halt foreclosure was dismissed with costs on 5 June 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to determine the matter?
  2. Whether the Applicant Mortgagee meets the grounds for the grant of an Order of vacant possession of the mortgaged property under the Mortgage Act, Cap. 239?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Applicant is hereby granted vacant possession of the mortgaged property comprised in Busiro Block 401 Plot 2092 at Bwebajja.
  • An eviction order is issued in favour of the Applicant against the Respondent in respect of the said property.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Mortgage Enforcement — Statutory Power of Possession — Section 23 Mortgage Act
A mortgagee has a statutory power under Section 23 of the Mortgage Act to enter into possession of mortgaged land after serving a Notice of Default under Section 18 (granting a 45-working-day cure period) and a Notice of Intention to take possession of not less than five working days, provided the mortgagor remains in default.
Jurisdiction — Standalone Statutory Applications — Lis Pendens
An application for vacant possession under Section 23 of the Mortgage Act is a standalone miscellaneous cause that enforces an independent statutory right. The existence of a pending substantive suit challenging the validity of the mortgage does not oust the court's jurisdiction to determine the possession application, as a possession order merely addresses occupancy status and does not resolve underlying legal claims, which remain active for trial.
Mortgage Enforcement — Irreparable Loss — Property as Security
Property pledged as security for a loan carries an inherent risk of sale upon default. Any loss suffered by a mortgagor from eviction pending determination of a substantive suit is not irreparable per se and can be adequately atoned for by an award of damages should the mortgagor succeed in the main suit, provided the mortgagee is not impecunious.
Abuse of Process — Forum Shopping — Fragmented Litigation
A borrower who has had an application for a temporary injunction to halt foreclosure dismissed with costs cannot obtain a de facto injunction by raising the same objections in reply to a standalone possession application. To allow such a course would constitute an abuse of court process and undermine the finality of judicial determinations.
Mortgage Enforcement — Admission of Debt — Effect on Possession Application
Where a mortgagor has admitted indebtedness in writing and committed to a repayment plan which he subsequently failed to honour, the mortgagor has no valid ground to resist a summary statutory procedure for possession under Section 23 of the Mortgage Act, notwithstanding allegations of mismanagement or illegal interest raised in a separate substantive suit.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (14)

  • Cairo Bank Uganda v Banga Michael Ssemugabi and Another (HCMA No. 1406 of 2025)
  • Impala Credit Ltd v Twahah Muziira (HC OS No. 6 of 2025)
  • Kakooza Abdullah v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 614 of 2012)
  • His Highness Kabaka of Buganda v Buikwe District Local Government and Others (Misc. App. No. 566 of 2025)
  • Microfinance Support Centre Ltd & Anor v Kassese Hospital Ltd & Anor (HCT-25-CV-OS-0001-2024)
  • Christopher Ssozi v Attorney General (HCMC No. 103 of 2019)
  • Mugisa M Abraham & 4 Others v Rwambuka & Co Advocates (Misc. App. No. 733 of 2018)
  • Shiv Construction Co Ltd v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (SCCA No. 34 of 1992)
  • Jas Ventures International Ltd v Okello Carlos Orach (HCOS No. 008 of 2023)
  • Equity Bank (U) Ltd & Anor v Mbaziira Ernest (HCOS No. 0006 of 2022)
  • Progressive Group of Schools Ltd & Others v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 81 of 2023)
  • Formula Feeds Ltd & Anor v KCB Bank (U) Ltd & 2 Ors (HCMA No. 208 of 2020)
  • Friends Estate Ltd v Haji Numan Mubi Akulamusa (SCCA No. 21 of 2020)
  • Margaret, Duchess of Argyll v. Duke of Argyll & Others (1965 1 All ER)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bank of Africa Uganda Ltd v Apollo Wensi Arinanye (Miscellaneous Cause 125 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 153 (15 March 2026)
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.