Wakilii

Impala Credit Limited v Twahah Muziira (Originating Summons No. 6 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 516 · 2025 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Originating summons by mortgagee seeking vacant possession of mortgaged property following borrower default
Decision
Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with order for vacant possession and costs

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

Held that a mortgagee who has complied with statutory notice requirements under the Mortgage Act sections 18 and 23 is entitled to vacant possession of mortgaged property where the mortgagor remains in default after expiry of the cure period. Partial payments by the mortgagor that do not fully cure the debt do not invalidate prior notices of default or require fresh notices. The court granted vacant possession to the mortgagee and awarded costs.

Outcome

Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff with order for vacant possession and costs

Facts

On 5 March 2024, the plaintiff extended a loan facility of UGX 210,159,794 to the defendant, repayable in six monthly instalments. The loan was secured by a mortgage over property at Bulange Kyadondo Block 26 Plot 354, with spousal consent. The defendant defaulted on repayment obligations. The plaintiff issued notices of default on 22 July 2024 and 30 September 2024, followed by a notice of sale on 13 November 2024. The property was advertised for sale three times, but prospective purchasers sought assurance of vacant possession. The defendant, who remained in possession, denied access for inspection and refused to surrender possession. The outstanding debt stood at UGX 269,029,275 as of 8 July 2025. The defendant disputed the interest charged but did not dispute the principal amount.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order of vacant possession of the suit property at Bulange Kyadondo Block 26 Plot 354.
  2. Whether the plaintiff should be granted costs of this suit.

Orders

  • The defendant forthwith delivers to the plaintiff vacant possession of the mortgaged property, described as Bulange Kyadondo Block 26 Plot 354.
  • The defendant pays costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Mortgage Law — Mortgagee's Power to Take Possession — Statutory Requirements
Under section 23(1) of the Mortgage Act, a mortgagee may enter into possession of mortgaged land after the end of the period specified in section 18 and after serving notice of not less than five working days of intention to do so. The conditions triggering this power are: issuance of a notice of default with a cure period of 45 working days, and where such period lapses without rectification, issuance of a notice of not less than five working days of intention to enter into possession.
Mortgage Law — Notice of Default — Effect of Partial Payments
Where a mortgagor makes partial payments that do not fully cure the debt, such payments do not invalidate prior notices of default. Fresh notices are not mandatory but may be issued out of courtesy. The purpose of the notice is to remind the mortgagor of the obligation to rectify default; if deposits do not fully cure the debt, the notices still stand.
Originating Summons — Suitability of Procedure — Mortgage Possession Claims
Originating summons are intended to solve simple and straightforward matters which do not require interrogation or taking of evidence. The procedure is suited for matters requiring interpretation of documents, deeds or instruments, and where there are no substantial disputes as to facts but rather on legal consequences of the set of facts. A claim for vacant possession by a mortgagee is properly brought by originating summons where the main issue is construction of the facility agreement and there is no substantial dispute of fact.
Mortgage Law — Challenge to Interest Rate — Proper Procedure
Sections 33, 34 and 35 of the Mortgage Act empower mortgagors to move the court by application to review a mortgage where there are claims that the mortgage contains provisions which are unlawful, unconscionable or extortionate. A challenge to interest rates cannot be accommodated in originating summons proceedings for vacant possession, as such a challenge would require evidence surrounding the foundation of the bargain by the parties.
Mortgage Law — Statutory Interpretation — Section 23 Mortgage Act
The heading of a statutory provision may be taken into consideration in determining the meaning of the provision where that provision is ambiguous. The heading of section 23 of the Mortgage Act, 'Power of mortgagee to take possession of mortgaged land', infers the legal right granted to the mortgagee to assume control over property pledged as security. The provision stipulates conditions which trigger exercise of the power and provides for judicial oversight through section 23(2)(c) where resistance is encountered.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (11)

  • General Parts (U) Ltd & Another v Non Performing Recovery Trust (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2004)
  • E. Nakabugo v Francis Drake Serujogi (1981) HCB 58
  • Testimony Motors v The Commissioner Customs and URA (High Court Civil Suit No. 004 of 2011)
  • Zalwango Elverson & Another v Dorothy Walusimbi & Another (Originating Summons No. 3 of 2013)
  • Chaudhri Thakur Das and Others v. Chaudhri Jairaj Singh (Allahabad), [1903] UKPC 77
  • Housing Finance Bank Limited v Silk Events Limited & Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 300 of 2021)
  • Escoigne Properties Ltd v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1958] 1 All ER 406 (BL) at 414D
  • Heydon's case (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7a
  • Solomon Champlain Lui and another v Stanbic Bank Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 766 of 2016)
  • Ecumenical Church Loan Fund Uganda Limited v Ways KM Uganda Limited (Originating Summons No. 11 of 2014)
  • Uganda Development Bank vs Muganga Construction Co. Ltd (1981) H.C.B 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Impala Credit Limited v Twahah Muziira (Originating Summons No. 6 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 516 (27 September 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.