Wakilii

C&G Andijes Group Ltd and Others v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1967 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 514 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction to restrain foreclosure and sale of mortgaged properties, arising from HCCS No. 488 of 2025
Decision
Application dismissed for failure to comply with prior conditional court order requiring 30% deposit

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 court dismissed an application for temporary injunction to restrain foreclosure of mortgaged properties where the applicants failed to comply with a prior court order requiring deposit of 30% of the outstanding amount within 30 days. Held that Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 makes payment of the 30% security deposit mandatory once a court exercises discretion to adjourn a sale, and failure to comply with such a conditional order estops the applicant from seeking further relief and constitutes abuse of court process.

Outcome

Application dismissed for failure to comply with prior conditional court order requiring 30% deposit

Facts

The applicants, mortgagors of five properties to Stanbic Bank, sought a temporary injunction to restrain the bank from foreclosing and selling the mortgaged properties. The respondent bank had filed Civil Suit No. 488 of 2025 for recovery of USD 4,955,866.15. The applicants had previously filed Civil Suit No. 1435 of 2024 challenging the mortgage deeds and corporate guarantee as illegal. On 27 March 2025, in Miscellaneous Application No. 2414 of 2024, the court granted a temporary injunction conditional upon the applicants depositing 30% of the outstanding amount (USD 1,839,167.19) within 30 days. The applicants contacted the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development to disburse the 30% payment, and the Ministry engaged the respondent with intention to pay. However, the 30-day period elapsed without payment being made, and the respondent proceeded with foreclosure. The applicants then filed this fresh application seeking to restrain the foreclosure. The respondent did not file a reply despite service, and the hearing proceeded ex parte.

Issues

  1. Whether this application for temporary injunction should be granted.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Mortgage Law — Temporary Injunction — Mandatory 30% Security Deposit under Mortgage Regulations
Under Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012, once a court exercises its discretion to adjourn a sale of mortgaged property, the payment of 30% of the forced sale value or outstanding amount is mandatory and not discretionary. The use of the word 'upon' in the regulation imposes a condition that automatically arises once the injunction is granted.
Mortgage Law — Lex Specialis Principle — Mortgage Act Overrides General Civil Procedure
Applications for temporary injunctions involving mortgaged property must be dealt with in conformity with the statutory provisions of the Mortgage Act 2009 and Mortgage Regulations 2012. The specific statutory requirements override traditional considerations for the grant of a temporary injunction under the Civil Procedure Rules, applying the principle lex specialis derogat legi generali.
Temporary Injunction — Failure to Comply with Conditional Order — Estoppel and Abuse of Process
Where an applicant fails to comply with a conditional interim injunction order requiring deposit of 30% of the outstanding amount within a specified period, the applicant is estopped from seeking further relief in a subsequent application for the same purpose. Such conduct constitutes abuse of court process and violates the principle that a party must come to court with clean hands.
Mortgage Law — Policy Rationale — 'Pay Now, Argue Later' Principle
Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 enacts the principle 'pay now, argue later' and is designed to restrict the ability of mortgagors to use litigation vexatiously to delay realisation of money due to the mortgagee. The 30% deposit serves as the applicant's warranty that the law will uphold the issuance of the injunction.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (15)

  • Fellowes and Son v Fisher [1976] 1 QB 122
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396
  • Geilla v Cassman Brown Co Ltd [1973] EA 358
  • GAPCO Uganda Limited v Kaweesa and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • Willis International Engineering and Contractors Ltd and Another v DFCU Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 1000 of 2015)
  • Miao Huaxian v Crane Bank Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 935 of 2015)
  • GS Royal Hardware and Industries Ltd and Another v Equity Bank (U) Ltd and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 721 of 2015)
  • Parul Ben Barot v Victoria Finance Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 319 of 2017)
  • Alpha2 Business Company Ltd v Diamond Trust Bank Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 71 of 2016)
  • Housing Financing Bank Limited v Silk Events Limited and Another (Civil Appeal No. 300 of 2021)
  • Ganafa Peter Kisawuzi v DFCU Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 64 of 2016)
  • Kingston Enterprises Ltd and Others v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 1050 of 2020)
  • Haji Edirisa Kasule and Another v Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 667 of 2013)
  • Guaranty Trust Bank (U) Ltd v Ankole Riverline Hotel Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2014)
  • Paunocks Enterprises Ltd and Others v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1113 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

C&G Andijes Group Ltd and Others v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1967 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 514 (23 September 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.