Wakilii

Kagoro v Cairo Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Appeal 14 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 105 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Assistant Registrar's decision in miscellaneous application to adjourn mortgage sale
Decision
Appeal and application for review dismissed; Assistant Registrar's order requiring 30% deposit as condition for temporary injunction upheld

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 dismissed the appeal from the Assistant Registrar's order requiring the appellant to deposit 30% of the forced sale value or outstanding mortgage amount as a condition for a temporary injunction halting mortgage sale. The court held that Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations is discretionary and permits such conditions to be imposed even where not specifically prayed for, as the court has inherent power under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. No valuation report is required; the property value at the time of mortgage execution suffices. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Outcome

Appeal and application for review dismissed; Assistant Registrar's order requiring 30% deposit as condition for temporary injunction upheld

Facts

The appellant's husband obtained a loan of UGX 1,500,000,000 from the respondent bank in 2018, secured by mortgage over properties in Kampala. The loan was to be repaid from rental proceeds in 24 quarterly instalments of UGX 62,500,000. The borrower defaulted, and the bank issued notices of default and mortgage sale. The appellant, claiming to be the legal wife, instituted civil suit challenging the sale on grounds her spousal consent had not been obtained. She filed a miscellaneous application seeking to halt the sale. The Assistant Registrar granted a temporary injunction on condition that the appellant deposit 30% of the forced sale value or outstanding amount within 30 days. The appellant appealed, contending this condition was not prayed for and the wrong law was applied. The respondent opposed, maintaining the condition was proper under Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations.

Issues

  1. Whether the Assistant Registrar erred in ordering payment of 30% of the forced sale value of mortgaged property or outstanding amount when such relief was not prayed for by the Respondent
  2. Whether the Assistant Registrar applied the wrong provision of law in requiring the Appellant to deposit 30% under Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations
  3. Whether the Assistant Registrar prematurely determined the main suit on merit by ordering payment within 30 days
  4. Whether a valuation report is required before an order under Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations can be made
  5. Whether the Appellant is entitled to review of the Registrar's order

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Application for review dismissed.
  • Costs to follow the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals from Registrar — Jurisdiction — Powers of Registrar to review own orders
The Registrar has no power to review or set aside their own judgment or order. Any person aggrieved by an order of the Registrar may appeal to the High Court under Order 50 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The power to review judgments or orders of the High Court, including those entered by the Registrar, is not among the powers delegated to the Registrar.
Land & Property — Mortgages — Temporary injunction to halt sale — Deposit requirement under Regulation 13(1)
Under Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations, the court may, on application by the mortgagor, spouse, or any interested party, adjourn a mortgage sale upon payment of a security deposit of 30% of the forced sale value or outstanding amount. This provision is discretionary, not mandatory. The court has inherent power under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to impose such conditions even where not specifically prayed for, as necessary for the ends of justice.
Land & Property — Mortgages — Valuation report — Requirement for adjournment of sale
For purposes of Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations requiring a 30% deposit to adjourn mortgage sale, no fresh valuation report is necessary. The value of the mortgaged property at the time of execution of the mortgage suffices, being a pre-dispute value agreed upon by the parties. The requirement in Regulation 11(2) for a valuation report six months before sale is specific to the value at the time of sale by the mortgagee, not for purposes of adjournment or postponement.
Civil Procedure — Applications for review — Error apparent on face of record
An error apparent on the face of the record must be an error on a substantial point of law that stares one in the face and on which there could reasonably be no two opinions. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning, or on points where two views are conceivable, cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A mere erroneous decision or wrong view is no ground for review, although it may ground an appeal.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Interference with discretion of lower court
An appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a lower court unless satisfied that the lower court misdirected itself and came to a wrong decision, or that manifest injustice resulted from a clearly wrong exercise of discretion. The appellate court should not interfere merely because of a difference of opinion as to the proper order. There must be shown an unjudicial exercise of discretion at which no court could reasonably arrive.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Buwule Kasasa v NWSC (Miscellaneous Application No. 002 of 2016)
  • Ganafa Peter Kisawuzi v DFCU Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 64 of 2016)
  • Nakato Margaret v Housing Finance Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 687 of 2021)
  • Pantl Ben Barot v Victoria Finance Company Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 319 of 2017)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2011] 2 EA 173

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kagoro v Cairo Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Appeal 14 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 105 (6 October 2023)
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.