I & M Bank Limited v Mango & Another (Miscellaneous Appeal 18 of 2023)
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 High Court held that Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations, 2012 applies once a notice of default has been issued, triggering the foreclosure process. A court granting an injunction to stop or postpone such foreclosure must condition the injunction on prior deposit of a 30% security, calculated either on the forced sale value or on the outstanding loan debt. The absence of a valuation report does not prevent application of the regulation. The appeal was allowed and the injunction conditioned on deposit of 30% of the outstanding debt.
Outcome
Appeal allowed; injunction granted subject to deposit of 30% security within 45 days; matter remitted to Deputy Registrar for enforcement of substituted orders
Facts
The 2nd respondent (Fontana Auto Parts) obtained loans from the appellant bank secured by mortgages. The borrower defaulted and the bank issued notices of default dated 22nd and 23rd May 2023 and advertised the security for sale. The 1st respondent (Nadia Manji, a director) filed the main suit contesting authenticity of loan documents and applied for a temporary injunction to stop enforcement of the facility. The Deputy Registrar granted the injunction on 21st July 2023 but declined to condition it on deposit of 30% security as required by Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations, finding that no advertised sale was underway. The bank appealed.
Issues
- Whether the appeal and the 1st respondent's affidavit in reply to the appeal are properly before the Court.
- Whether the learned Deputy Registrar erred in law and fact when she declined to enforce Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations, 2012 while determining Misc. Application No. 0018 of 2023.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Orders of the learned Deputy Registrar set aside.
- A temporary injunction is granted restraining the appellant from enforcing the security until disposal of the main suit, subject to prior deposit of USD 865,235.21 (30% of USD 2,884,117.35) within 45 days from the date of this ruling.
- Costs of the appeal and of Misc. Application No. 0690 of 2023 to abide by the outcome of the main suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Mortgage Regulations Regulation 13(1)
- Mortgage Regulations Regulation 13(4)
- Mortgage Regulations Regulation 13(6)
- Mortgage Act s.19
- Judicature Act s.33
- Judicature Act s.38
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 rule 8
- Oaths Act s.6
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
Cases cited (4)
- Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
- Ganafa Peter Kisawuzi v DFCU Bank Limited (CA Civ. Application No. 64 of 2016)
- J. B. Magara v Katehangwa (HCMA No. 0143 of 2000)
- Performance Furnishings (U) Ltd & Anor v Diamond Trust Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Misc. Application No. 278 of 2020)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.