Wakilii

G7 Prime Limited v Wamala Realty Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2209 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 377 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for Mareva injunction and attachment before judgment arising from pending civil suit for breach of construction contract
Decision
Application for Mareva injunction and attachment before judgment dismissed

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 a Mareva injunction and attachment before judgment. The applicant failed to establish that the respondent's pending sale of the suit property was intended to obstruct or delay execution of any decree. The court found that the property was being sold to satisfy a prior mortgagee's debt, not to defeat the applicant's claim. The applicant also failed to provide the mandatory undertaking as to damages, which is required unless dispensed with for good reason.

Outcome

Application for Mareva injunction and attachment before judgment dismissed

Facts

On 17 March 2022, the applicant (G7 Prime Limited) entered into a construction contract with the respondent (Wamala Realty Limited) for works on property comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 3418 Folio 5 Plot 4 Ntinda Road, Kampala. The applicant claimed it executed works worth UGX 1,790,318,122 but was only paid UGX 1,417,000,000, leaving a balance of UGX 373,318,112. The respondent contended the contract was a fixed sum contract of UGX 1,453,928,240 and that the applicant did substandard work and abandoned the site. The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 670 of 2023 for breach of contract and recovery of outstanding sums. The applicant then discovered the property was advertised for sale at USD 2,100,000 and sought a Mareva injunction. The respondent had obtained a loan facility from DFCU Bank Ltd in December 2021, secured by a mortgage over the suit property. DFCU Bank had appointed a debt collector and auctioneer to recover outstanding sums, and the sale was to satisfy the mortgagee's debt.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has raised substantive grounds for the grant of a Mareva injunction or an order for attachment before judgment of the property comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 3418 Folio 5 Plot 4 Ntinda Road, Kampala?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Mareva Injunction — Requirements for Grant — Good Arguable Case
For a Mareva injunction to be granted, the applicant must establish that its case for damages is strong and likely to succeed. The test of a good arguable case is that it must be more than barely capable of serious argument, yet not necessarily one which the judge believes to have a better than 50 per cent chance of success.
Civil Procedure — Mareva Injunction — Requirements for Grant — Evidence of Dissipation with Intent
A Mareva injunction or attachment before judgment requires evidence that the defendant is removing or there is a real risk that the defendant is about to remove or dispose of property with the intention of obstructing or delaying execution of any decree. The court must be satisfied not only that the defendant is about to dispose of property but also that the disposal is with intent to obstruct or delay execution.
Civil Procedure — Mareva Injunction — Third Party Rights — Mortgagee's Interest
There cannot be attachment of property before judgment which affects the rights existing prior to the attachment or persons not parties to the suit. Where a mortgagee has a legal interest in the property and is exercising its power of sale to recover outstanding debt, the pending sale cannot be presumed to be with intent to obstruct or delay execution of a decree in favour of another creditor.
Civil Procedure — Mareva Injunction — Undertaking as to Damages — Mandatory Requirement
An applicant for a Mareva injunction is required to make an undertaking that if it is later determined that the order should not have been granted and the respondent suffers damages as a result, the applicant will pay damages. This undertaking is almost certainly mandatory unless dispensed with by court for good reason such as the possibility of stifling the action. The requirement is meant to weed out speculative or tactical applications and provides assurance that the applicant is serious and confident in the justness of its cause.
Civil Procedure — Mareva Injunction — Proportionality — Protection of Defendant's Business
Being a discretionary remedy, the court must consider the proportionality of a Mareva injunction order. The effect of the order on the respondent's ability to conduct its business in the ordinary course is a relevant consideration since its liability is yet to be determined. The question of proportionality relates to balancing the need to preserve the applicant's interests pending the outcome while protecting the rights of innocent third parties lawfully created in the course of commercial transactions with the respondent.
Civil Procedure — Mareva Injunction — Priority Among Creditors — No Preferential Treatment
The courts must be vigilant to ensure that a Mareva defendant is not treated as a judgment debtor. A Mareva injunction does not give the plaintiff priority over other creditors.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (8)

  • Abby Mugimu v Luciano Basabosa [1991] HCB 70
  • Kaweesi Sulaiman & 26 Others v Bank of Uganda and Another (HCMA No. 258 of 2022)
  • Fourie v La Roux [2007] UKHL 1
  • Chen Jian Wen & 2 Others v Bang Cheng Investments Co. Ltd (HCMA No. 531 of 2023)
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v The Pepper Publications Limited (HCMA No. 1620 of 2021)
  • Uganda Electricity Board (In Liquidation) v Royal Van Zanten (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 251 of 2006)
  • AJ Bekhor & Co. Ltd v Bilton [1981] 2 All ER 565
  • China Forestry International Development Co. Ltd v China Shandong HI-Speed Uganda Ltd (HCMA No. 486 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

G7 Prime Limited v Wamala Realty Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2209 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 377 (15 October 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.