Wakilii

KTA Advocates v Colline House Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2158 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 124 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of an earlier ruling directing deposit of funds into court rather than to the applicant conducting the mortgage sale
Decision
Application for review granted; funds to be transferred from court to applicant's account within fourteen days

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 court reviewed its earlier order directing deposit of 30% of forced sale value into court, finding an error apparent on the face of the record. Regulation 13(4) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 requires payment to the person conducting the sale, not to the court. The order was substituted to direct payment from court to the applicant's bank account within fourteen days.

Outcome

Application for review granted; funds to be transferred from court to applicant's account within fourteen days

Facts

The respondent obtained a temporary injunction in HCMA 1481/2022 on condition of depositing 30% of the forced sale value of mortgaged property with the court within 30 days. The applicant, KTA Advocates, was conducting a mortgage sale on behalf of the mortgagee Grofin (U) Limited. The respondent complied by depositing UGX 1,660,024,000 into court. The applicant then sought review, arguing the court erred in directing deposit to court rather than to the applicant as the person conducting the sale. A related application (HCMA 1141/2023) concerning valuation reports was determined in September 2024, with the court accepting the 2018 valuation and the amount already paid as satisfying the order. The present application was heard after that determination by consent of parties.

Issues

  1. Whether the decision of this court in HCMA 1481 of 2022 should be reviewed
  2. What remedies are available to the Parties

Orders

  • The order in HCMA No. 1481 of 2022 directing the Respondent to deposit 30% of the forced sale value of the suit property with the court is hereby reviewed and substituted with an order directing the Court to deposit the said 30% i.e. UGX 1,660,024,000/- into the bank account of the Applicant within fourteen days from date of delivering this Ruling.
  • Each party shall bear its costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Court Orders — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An error apparent on the face of the record is an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness and must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit such error to remain on record. The error may be one of fact or law.
Mortgage Law — Mortgage Sales — Security Deposit Under Regulation 13(4)
Under Regulation 13(4) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012, where a sale is stopped or adjourned at the request of the mortgagor or interested party, the security deposit of 30% of the forced sale value must be paid to the person conducting the sale, not to the court.
Commercial Law — Mortgage Regulations — Purpose of Security Deposit Requirement
Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations is designed to restrict the ability of mortgagors to use litigation or the courts to delay realization of money due to the mortgagee, reduce frivolous objections to sales, and guarantee that the mortgagee will not be unnecessarily prejudiced by litigation-induced delays. It is a commercial tool enabling business continuity in credit institutions and money lending businesses.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (2)

  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Edison Kanyabwera v Pastori Tumwebaze (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

KTA Advocates v Colline House Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2158 of 2023) [2025] UGCommC 124 (22 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.