Wakilii

Kasese Hospital Limited & Another v The Miscro Finance Support Centre Limited & Another (Civil Suit 684 of 2019)

High Court · [2024] UGCOMMC 259 · 2024 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit challenging validity of sale of mortgaged property by first defendant to second defendant pursuant to Murabaha facility agreement
Decision
Suit dismissed; sale of mortgaged property declared valid

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 court held that a Murabaha facility agreement is a sale-based financing arrangement distinct from a profit-sharing mudarabah agreement. The plaintiff was in default of its repayment obligations and the defendant's exercise of power of sale under the Mortgage Act was lawful. The Murabaha agreement was governed by both Sharia law and the laws of Uganda, permitting foreclosure under the Mortgage Act upon default. The property was properly valued before sale and sold at the forced sale value following public auction. The sale was valid and enforceable.

Outcome

Suit dismissed; sale of mortgaged property declared valid

Facts

The first plaintiff obtained a Murabaha facility of UGX 303,000,000 from the first defendant to purchase medical equipment. The second plaintiff guaranteed the facility with his land. The first plaintiff defaulted on repayment. The first defendant issued statutory notices and sold the mortgaged property by public auction to the second defendant for UGX 480,210,000. The plaintiffs challenged the sale claiming the Murabaha agreement was governed exclusively by Sharia law requiring profit-sharing, that no profits had been declared, that the sale was below market value, and that the sale required their consent. The first defendant contended the agreement was a Murabaha (sale-based financing with mark-up) not a mudarabah (profit-sharing partnership), that default entitled them to foreclose under the Mortgage Act, and that the sale followed proper procedure.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Defendant was in breach of the Murabaha Facility when it sanctioned the sale of the suit property to the 2nd Defendant without the consent of the 1st Plaintiff.
  2. Whether the 1st Plaintiff was in default of its contractual obligations at the time of sale of the suit property.
  3. Whether the sale of the security property below the forced sale value was illegal.
  4. Whether the 1st Defendant was entitled to any mark-up from the 1st Plaintiff before any profits could be declared by the 1st Plaintiff.
  5. Whether there is a valid sale of property comprised in FRV HQT 753 Folio 19 Block 26 Plot 182 land at Kabunyiri by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant.
  6. What reliefs are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed with costs to the Defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Islamic Banking — Murabaha Facility Agreement — Distinction from Mudarabah Agreement
A Murabaha facility is a sale-based financing arrangement under which a financial institution purchases assets and sells them to a customer at a price greater than cost price, including a mark-up, to be repaid in instalments. This is distinct from a mudarabah agreement which is an equity partnership involving profit and loss sharing. Under a Murabaha agreement the customer's obligation is to repay the purchase price plus the predetermined mark-up regardless of whether the customer has made profits from the acquired assets.
Breach of Contract — Default under Murabaha Facility Agreement
Under a Murabaha facility agreement where the customer agrees to repay the purchase price plus mark-up in monthly instalments, failure to make the agreed monthly payments constitutes a breach of contractual obligations and an event of default, entitling the financier to declare the entire sum due and payable, regardless of whether the customer has made profits from the use of the financed assets.
Islamic Banking Regulations — Sale-Based Financing
Under Regulation 11(5) of the Financial Institutions (Islamic Banking) Regulations No. 2 of 2018, sale-based financing is an arrangement where assets are purchased by a financial institution and sold to a customer at a price greater than the cost price. This definition encompasses Murabaha facilities and distinguishes them from equity partnership financing arrangements.
Governing Law — Dual Governance by Sharia Law and Ugandan Law
Where a Murabaha facility agreement provides that it is governed by and shall be construed in accordance with both Sharia law and the laws of Uganda, there is no exclusive application of Sharia law. The agreement must be construed in accordance with both systems, including the Mortgage Act where the facility is secured by a registered mortgage.
Mortgages — Power of Sale — Exercise under Mortgage Act
Where a Murabaha facility agreement secured by a registered mortgage is governed by both Sharia law and the laws of Uganda and the agreement is silent on the mode of recovery upon default, the mortgagee may exercise the power of sale under Section 20(e) of the Mortgage Act when the mortgagor fails to comply with a notice of default issued under Section 19. Exercise of this statutory power does not breach the Murabaha agreement.
Mortgages — Sale by Public Auction — Consent Not Required
A sale of mortgaged property by public auction pursuant to Section 26 of the Mortgage Act and Regulation 8 of the Mortgage Regulations does not require the consent of the mortgagor. The requirement for consent under Section 28(1)(d) of the Mortgage Act applies only to sales by private treaty, not to sales by public auction.
Mortgages — Valuation — Duty to Obtain Best Price
Under Section 27(1) of the Mortgage Act and Regulation 11 of the Mortgage Regulations, a mortgagee must value mortgaged property to ascertain current market price and forced sale value before sale, and the valuation report must not be more than six months old at the date of sale. Where the property is sold at or above the forced sale value determined by a valuation report made within six months of sale, and the mortgagee has advertised the sale, the mortgagee has fulfilled the duty to take all reasonable steps to obtain the best price.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (3)

  • Ronald Kasibante v Shell Uganda Limited (HCCS No. 542 of 2006)
  • DFCU Bank Ltd v Yudaya Mukiibi & Others (HCCS No. 195 of 2012)
  • Kasaala Growers Co-operative Society v Kakooza & Another (SCCA No. 19 of 2010)

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.

Kasese Hospital Limited & Another v The Miscro Finance Support Centre Limited & Another (Civil Suit 684 of 2019) [2024] UGCommC 259 (19 August 2024)
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.