Wakilii

Goldmine Finance Limited v Timothy Kayondo and Another (Miscellaneous Appeal 14 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 360 · 2025 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the decision of the Assistant Registrar granting a temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 357 of 2024, arising from Civil Suit No. 238 of 2024
Decision
Temporary injunction set aside; mortgagor's remedy lies in damages if successful in main suit

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the temporary injunction granted by the Assistant Registrar. The court held that where mortgaged property has already been sold and transferred to a third-party purchaser, a temporary injunction restraining interference with the mortgagor's possession is inappropriate. The Mortgage Regulations protect bona fide purchasers and do not envisage stopping a sale that has already occurred; the mortgagor's remedy lies in damages, not retention of possession.

Outcome

Temporary injunction set aside; mortgagor's remedy lies in damages if successful in main suit

Facts

On 22 July 2022, the appellant lender and the respondent borrowers entered into a loan agreement for UGX 200,000,000 at 4% monthly interest, secured by a mortgage over land in Busiro Block 306 Plot 7629 Bira jointly registered in the respondents' names. The respondents defaulted, having repaid only UGX 33,000,000. The appellant exercised its power of sale, selling the property to Mr. Kakonge Richard for UGX 850,000,000, and the certificate of title was registered in his name on 26 February 2024. The respondents then filed Civil Suit No. 238 of 2024 challenging the legality of the money lending contract, the interest rates, and the sale process, and sought a temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 357 of 2024 to restrain interference with their possession. The Assistant Registrar granted the injunction on condition that the respondents deposit 30% of the forced sale value, which they did. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of Miscellaneous Application No. 357 of 2024 was properly deponed by the 2nd Applicant without written authority from the 1st Applicant.
  2. Whether the addition of Mr. Kakonge Richard as a party to Civil Suit No. 238 of 2024 and Miscellaneous Application No. 357 of 2024 was lawful without formal court leave.
  3. Whether the amendments to the plaint in Civil Suit No. 238 of 2024 made before the issuance of summons were lawful.
  4. Whether the Applicants in Miscellaneous Application No. 357 of 2024 demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success.
  5. Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the temporary injunction after the court found that the Applicants would not suffer irreparable damage.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Order granting temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 357 of 2024 set aside.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Affidavits — Authority to Swear on Behalf of Co-Party — Requirement of Written Authority
Where an affidavit is sworn by one party on behalf of a co-party and the facts are within the personal knowledge of the deponent and similar to those of the co-party, written authority from the co-party is not strictly required. The critical consideration is whether the deponent has personal knowledge of the facts and whether the opposite party suffers any prejudice from the absence of written authority.
Amendment of Pleadings — Amendment Before Issuance of Summons — Jurisdiction
A court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a plaint until a summons to file a defence has been issued and served. Amendments made to a plaint before the issuance of summons do not require leave of court, as the suit remains a nullity until summons are issued and the procedural step activating subsequent proceedings is completed.
Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Threshold for Grant
To establish a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, an applicant need only demonstrate that there exists a serious question to be tried and that the suit is not vexatious or frivolous. The threshold is intentionally set low to ensure that potential litigants are not unjustly barred from pursuing their claims. It is sufficient that the court is satisfied a bona fide contention is present, whether in fact or law.
Mortgage — Sale of Mortgaged Property — Temporary Injunction After Completed Sale
Where mortgaged property has already been sold and transferred to a third-party purchaser prior to the institution of a suit, a temporary injunction restraining the mortgagee or purchaser from interfering with the mortgagor's possession is inappropriate. The Mortgage Regulations do not envisage stopping a sale that has already occurred. The mortgagor's remedy for any irregularity in the sale process lies in an award of damages, not in retention of possession or setting aside the completed sale.
Mortgage — Protection of Bona Fide Purchasers — Rights of Registered Proprietor
The Mortgage Regulations afford broad protection to third-party purchasers who acquire mortgaged property in good faith and in compliance with the statutory procedures. A purchaser who is registered as proprietor is entitled to possession and all benefits accruing from such possession. Denying a bona fide purchaser possession after registration undermines the statutory protection and defeats the purpose of the purchase.
Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Discretion of Court
It is not automatic that upon a determination that an applicant would not suffer irreparable harm, the balance of convenience tips in favour of the respondent. The balance of convenience test weighs the applicant's need for protective relief against the respondent's interest in avoiding irreparable harm from the injunction's grant. A court will not grant or maintain a temporary injunction where the purposes for which it was sought have been substantially overtaken by events or where the substratum of the application has been lost.

Legislation cited (26)

Cases cited (45)

  • Fr Narsensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibehaqa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Farida Nantale v Attorney General and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 230 of 2013)
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (High Court Civil Suit No. 630 of 1993)
  • Erisa Rainbow Musoke v Ahamada Kawalya (1987) HCB 81
  • Giella v Casaman Brown & Co Ltd 1 EA 358
  • Rangant v Patel (1949) 16 EACA 63
  • E.A. Industries v. Trufoods, E.A. 420
  • Najjuma Jesca and Others v Moses Joloba and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 770 of 2015)
  • Kalgana v Dabo Boubou (1986) HCB 59
  • Bishop Patrick Baligasiima v Kiiza Daniel and 16 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1495 of 2016)
  • Isingoma Micheal v Law Development Centre (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 234 of 2019)
  • Executive Properties Ltd and 12 Others v Akright Projects Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 643 of 2012)
  • Performance Furnishings Ltd and Another v Diamond Trust Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 300 of 2020)
  • Zam Nambi v Bujjingo Ayub and Others (High Court Commercial Miscellaneous Application No. 1013 of 2015)
  • Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd. v. Mohammed Tijani HCCS No. 391993
  • Barclays Bank Ltd v Katenda Luttu (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1993)
  • Printing and Numerical Registering Co v Sampson (1875) LR 19 Eq 462
  • Granatino v. Radmacher UKSC 42
  • Alec Lobb Garages Ltd v Total Oil Ltd [1983] 1 All ER 944
  • Fontana Auto Parts (U) Ltd v I M Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Commercial Division Miscellaneous Application No. 303 of 2024)
  • Ssembatya Bumbakali Nalule Nusifah v Eco Petro Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 199 of 2015)
  • Dima Domnic Poro v Inyani (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2016)
  • Male Mabirizi v Kabaka of Buganda (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 257 of 2017)
  • Rashida Abdul Karim Hanali Mohamed Allibha v Suleiman Adrisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2017)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (1997-2001) UCL 149
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Kigongo v Kakeeto (Miscellaneous Application No. 144 of 2017)
  • Robert Kavuma v MS Hotel International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
  • Ali Muwanga Kibirige v Yako Bank Uganda Ltd (Civil Application No. 150 of 2024)
  • Giella v. Cassman Brown Co (1973)
  • Uganda Development Bank v. National Insurance Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 28959 CA)
  • Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Namutebi Matilda v Ssemanda Simon and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 430 of 2021)
  • Amtorg Trading Corporation v United States, 71 F.2d 524
  • Sirasi Bitaitana and 4 Others v Emmanuel Kananura (High Court Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1976)
  • Kizza Besigye v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Another (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Grace Namulondo and 3 Others v John Jones Serwanga Salongo and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 1 of 2019)
  • Gaso Transport Services (Bus) Ltd v Martin Adala Obene (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994)
  • Rashida Abdul Karim and Mohamed Allibhai v Suleiman Adrisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 9 of 2016)
  • Alley Route Ltd v Uganda Development Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 634 of 2006)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v Kaweesa Badru (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • Alley Route Ltd v Uganda Development Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 634 of 2006)
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 316
  • Humphrey Nzeyi v Bank of Uganda and Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • E.L.T. Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Goldmine Finance Limited v Timothy Kayondo and Another (Miscellaneous Appeal 14 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 360 (4 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.