Ecumenical Church Loan Fund Uganda Ltd v Ways KM Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 11 of 2014)
Observed later treatment
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
Held that the foreclosure procedure under the repealed Mortgage Act cap 229 section 8 no longer exists under the Mortgage Act 2009. The new Act provides for statutory powers of sale by a mortgagee without prior court intervention, subject to compliance with mandatory notice requirements under sections 19 and 26. Where a mortgagee seeks a court order for sale, it must prove compliance with the statutory provisions requiring a 45-day default notice in prescribed form. The originating summons was dismissed for lack of compliance and unsatisfactory service.
Outcome
Originating summons dismissed; plaintiff may proceed by ordinary suit
Facts
The plaintiff mortgagee filed an originating summons seeking foreclosure and sale of mortgaged property registered as Block 79 Plot 31 Bugerere. The defendant mortgagor had borrowed UGX 40,000,000 on 19 May 2011 for a two-year term. The property was mortgaged by the defendant under a power of attorney from the registered proprietors. The plaintiff alleged default and served demand notices in November 2011, January 2012 and a final reminder on 11 January 2012. The defendant did not appear at the scheduled hearings despite service attempts through a receptionist and accountant at its offices. The matter proceeded ex parte.
Issues
- Whether the mortgage should be foreclosed.
- Whether the mortgagee complied with the statutory requirements under the Mortgage Act 2009 for foreclosure and sale.
- Whether the matter is appropriate for determination by originating summons in a summary manner.
Orders
- Originating summons dismissed.
- Plaintiff directed to file an ordinary suit if it wants an order of court to sell the mortgaged property.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (22)
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.19(1)
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.19(2)
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.19(3)
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.20
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.26
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.26(2)
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.26(3)
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.33
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.34
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.35
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.36
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.44
- Mortgage Act cap 229 s.2
- Mortgage Act cap 229 s.3(c)
- Mortgage Act cap 229 s.8
- Mortgage Act cap 229 s.9
- Mortgage Regulations 2012 reg.8
- Mortgage Regulations 2012 reg.9
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 37 rule 4
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 37 rule 8
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 37 rule 11
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 20
Cases citing this judgment (5)
How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.
- Okic v Loum (Civil Appeal 60 of 2023)
- Najjuko v Uganda Microcredit Foundation Ltd and Another (Civil Appeal 9 of 2023)
- Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Munwe Enterprises Limited & Another (Civil Suit 13 of 2022)
- Nantume and Another v Kakaire (Civil Appeal 71 of 2017)
- Musoke v Muwonge (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2018)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.