Wakilii

Haruna Sentongo v I & M Bank (U) Limited (Civil Application 3 of 2025)

Supreme Court · [2025] UGSC 17 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Supreme Court for a stay of execution and temporary injunction pending determination of the appeal
Decision
Application granted; temporary injunction issued restraining dealings with the suit properties for four months or until the appeal is heard and decided

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

Sitting as a single Justice, the court overruled the respondent's preliminary objections, holding that under rule 41(2) of the Supreme Court Rules Directions it could entertain the application to safeguard the right of appeal notwithstanding that no application had first been determined by the Court of Appeal, and that the ECCMIS-confirmed administrative closure of the pending applications defeated the lis pendens objection. On the merits, the applicant had shown a prima facie likelihood of success and a real threat of execution causing substantial loss that would render the appeal nugatory, so the balance of convenience need not be assessed. The court granted a temporary injunction restraining dealings with the suit properties for four months or until the appeal is decided.

Outcome

Application granted; temporary injunction issued restraining dealings with the suit properties for four months or until the appeal is heard and decided

Facts

On 22 February 2016 the applicant obtained a UGX 5 billion facility from the respondent bank, secured by properties comprised in Kibuga Block 12 Plots 250, 251 and 825 (later 252) at Mengo, intended to construct a mall. A dispute arose over disbursement and repayment. The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 464 of 2018 contesting the loans, and the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 036 of 2019 seeking repayment of UGX 10,384,308,959. The consolidated suits were decided in favour of the respondent on 23 December 2022, ordering payment of that sum plus UGX 150,000,000 general damages. The applicant's Civil Appeal No. 001 of 2023 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, nullifying orders protecting the applicant from execution. An interim stay application later filed at the Court of Appeal was withdrawn. The applicant, having filed a further appeal in the Supreme Court, sought a stay of execution and temporary injunction to preserve the properties pending that appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was barred by lis pendens or incompetent for not having been first heard by the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether a single Justice of the Supreme Court may entertain the application under rule 41(2) despite no prior application to the Court of Appeal.
  3. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution and temporary injunction pending appeal.
  4. Whether Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations requiring payment of 30% of the outstanding loan barred the relief.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction doth issue restraining the respondents, their agents, representatives, nominees, assignees and/or successors in title from selling, transferring, alienating, evicting, dealing with or in any way interfering with the applicant's interest and possession of the properties comprised in Kibuga Block 12 Plots 250, 251 and 252 at Mengo until the determination of the applicant's appeal.
  • The temporary injunction shall remain in operation for a period of only four months or until the appeal is heard and decided, whichever comes first.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Single Justice Jurisdiction under Rule 41(2)
Under rule 41(2) of the Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions, a single Justice of the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, entertain an application under rule 6(2)(b) to safeguard the right of appeal notwithstanding that no application has first been made to or determined by the Court of Appeal.
Civil Procedure — Lis Pendens — Administrative Closure on ECCMIS
An objection of lis pendens cannot succeed where the record, including ECCMIS filings, shows that the earlier pending applications have been administratively closed, even if the physical withdrawal letter lacks a court stamp.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution / Injunction Pending Appeal — Conditions
To obtain interlocutory relief preventing execution pending appeal, an applicant must show a likelihood of success on appeal, a serious threat of execution causing irreparable or substantial loss, and that the application was made without undue delay; where likelihood of success and substantial loss are established, it is unnecessary to assess the balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Purpose: Preventing a Nugatory Appeal
The purpose of a stay of execution is to preserve the subject matter in dispute and maintain the status quo so that an appellant's undoubted right of appeal is not defeated by the premature disposal or destruction of the subject matter.
Banking & Finance — Mortgage Regulations reg 13 — 30% Payment Not Absolute Where Statutory Compliance Contested
The requirement under Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations that an applicant pay 30% of the outstanding loan is not an absolute precondition to relief where the mortgagee's compliance with statutory requirements, such as conducting a valuation, is contested.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Prior Non-compliance Not Decisive
An applicant's alleged prior failure to comply with court orders is not a decisive factor in determining whether to grant a stay of execution, as such procedural lapses do not outweigh the fundamental principle of protecting the right of appeal.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 41(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions Rule 41(2)
  • Mortgage Regulations Regulation 13(1)

Cases cited (8)

  • John Lukoma & 2 Ors v Registered Trustees of the Society of the Missionaries of Africa (White Fathers) (Civil Application No. 16 of 2024)
  • Akankwasa Damina v Uganda Const App No.7 & 9 of 20u
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Crane Bank Ltd (In Receivership) v Sudhir Ruparelia & Another (Civil Application No. 33 of 2020)
  • Mohammed Mohamed Hamid v Roko Construction Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2017)
  • Francis Hansio Micar v Nuwa Walakira SCCA No.g of 1990
  • Haruna Sentongo v I & M Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Haruna Sentongo v I & M Bank (U) Limited (Civil Application 3 of 2025) [2025] UGSC 17 (9 May 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.