Ganafa v DFCU Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2016)

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.

Holding

On an application before a single Justice for an interim temporary injunction and stay of execution, the Court held that such orders require a pending competent substantive application, a notice of appeal validly lodged under rule 72, and an imminent threat of execution. The applicant proved none: there was no pending substantive application before the Court, the notice of appeal was incompetent because no leave to appeal had been granted or shown to have been refused (there being no automatic right of appeal), and there was no evidence of imminent danger to or execution against the property. Absent a pending substantive application there could be no prima facie case, so the remaining conditions did not arise. The application was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for an interim temporary injunction and stay of execution dismissed with costs.

Facts

The applicant had sued DFCU Bank Limited in the Commercial Division seeking a declaration that he was not liable for loan sums the bank had advanced to two co-defendants (later withdrawn from the suit) allegedly without his knowledge or consent. The trial court entered judgment in favour of the bank. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2016) and sought interim and substantive stays of execution and a temporary injunction there; the Court of Appeal declined to stop the intended sale. The applicant lodged a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and brought this application to restrain the bank, its agents and assignees from disposing of his mortgaged property (LRV 3808 Folio 20 Plot 665 Kyadondo Block 187, Kasangati) pending the final disposal of a main application. The bank, as mortgagee, asserted it was exercising its power of sale to recover an outstanding sum and was not executing the High Court decree, and contended that the notice of appeal and dependent applications were incompetent and that reg.13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 had not been complied with.

Issues

1. Whether there was a pending substantive application before the Supreme Court for an interim temporary injunction and stay of execution.
2. Whether a notice of appeal had been lodged in accordance with rule 72 of the Supreme Court Rules so as to render the application competent.
3. Whether there was an imminent threat to the property in issue justifying the orders sought.
4. Whether the applicant satisfied the legal requirements for the grant of an interim order of temporary injunction and stay of execution.

Orders

• The application is dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (14)

• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.3(g)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.41
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.42
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.50
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.72
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.78
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 r.1
• Mortgage Regulations 2012 reg.13(1)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 129
• Constitution of Uganda Article 132(2)
• Judicature Act s.6(1)
• Judicature Act s.8

Cases cited (9)

• Huang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein & 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2008)
• Alcon International Ltd v The New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2010)
• Charles Nyanzi v Margaret Nangonga & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2010)
• Shiv Construction Co. Ltd v Eudesh Enterprises Ltd (Civil Application No. 32 of 1992)
• Robert Kavuma v Hotel International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1996)
• Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and 3 Others v Attorney General & 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
• Dr. Ahamed Mohamed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 7 of 2016)
• Dr. Kashivu Atutoki & 3 Others v Grace Bamurangye & 3 Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 2 of 2010)
• Lawrence Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Ganafa Peter Kisawuzi v DFCU Bank Limited and Others (Civil Suit No. 922 of 2016)

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