Wakilii

Equity Bank (U) Limited & Another v Great Value Safaris Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Appeal 7 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 127 · 2024 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Registrar's ruling granting temporary injunction in mortgage foreclosure proceedings
Decision
Registrar's order granting temporary injunction set aside; 2nd Appellant's possession of the suit properties upheld

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

Held that where suit property has been sold by public auction in mortgage foreclosure proceedings and possession transferred to the purchaser before hearing of an application for temporary injunction, the Registrar erred in granting the injunction as it reversed the status quo. The burden was on the applicants for the injunction to prove they were still in possession at the time of hearing. A temporary injunction must preserve the existing status quo, not reverse it.

Outcome

Registrar's order granting temporary injunction set aside; 2nd Appellant's possession of the suit properties upheld

Facts

The 1st Appellant bank disbursed a loan of UGX 1,120,000,000 to the 1st Respondent secured by mortgages over two properties registered in the 2nd Respondent's name. Following default, the bank commenced foreclosure and on 29 September 2023 sold the properties by public auction to the 2nd Appellant for UGX 827,805,298. On 13 November 2023 the Respondents filed two applications seeking to restrain eviction. An interim injunction application was dismissed on 21 December 2023 and the 2nd Appellant took vacant possession on 5 February 2024. The substantive temporary injunction application was heard on 8 February 2024. The Registrar granted the injunction and ordered reversal of any eviction. Both parties claimed to be in possession at the time of the Registrar's hearing. The Appellants appealed, arguing the Registrar reversed the status quo.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Registrar erred in law when he granted an order reversing the status quo in the suit properties.
  2. Whether the learned Registrar erred when he set aside and lapsed the dismissal order in Miscellaneous Application No. 2722 of 2023.
  3. Whether the learned Registrar erred when he restricted the 2nd Appellant's proprietary rights in the suit properties despite their purchase at public auction.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Orders of the learned Registrar in Miscellaneous Application No. 2715 of 2023 set aside.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo — Reversal
A temporary injunction must preserve the existing status quo between the parties pending determination of the main suit and will not be granted where the effect would be to reverse the status quo that exists at the time of hearing the application.
Temporary Injunctions — Determination of Status Quo
In considering whether to grant a temporary injunction, it is necessary for the court to make a clear finding on what the status quo is at the time of hearing the application. Failure to determine the status quo constitutes an error of law.
Temporary Injunctions — Burden of Proof
Where an applicant seeks a temporary injunction to restrain eviction from property that has been sold, the burden is on the applicant to prove that they were in possession of the property at the time the application was heard. The burden of proof does not shift to the respondent unless the applicant discharges their initial burden under section 103 of the Evidence Act.
Appellate Procedure — Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Under Order 43 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, fresh evidence may be admitted on appeal where the trial court refused to admit evidence that ought to have been admitted, or where the appellate court requires any document or witness examination to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, including ensuring substantive justice.
Appeals — Interference with Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a lower court merely because it would have exercised the discretion differently. The appellate court will interfere only where the lower court acted on wrong principles or where the decision is manifestly absurd or unreasonable such that a misapplication of principle is inferred.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Silk Events Ltd & Another (Civil Appeal No. 300 of 2021)
  • Nakato Margaret v Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another (Civil Appeal No. 687 of 2021)
  • Morjaria Maheshwery Purshotam v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 191 of 2022)
  • Ikinu Debora Ogwang v Osele John & 18 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 17 of 2022)
  • Jover Byarugaba v Ali Muhoozi & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 215 of 2014)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdul Nasser Katende (1988) HCB 43
  • Mitanda Baklae Masso David v URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 1424 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Equity Bank (U) Limited & Another v Great Value Safaris Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Appeal 7 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 127 (8 April 2024)
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.