Wakilii

Letshego Uganda Limited v Ingabire Anne Linda [2025] UGHC 1593

High Court · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Originating Summons by mortgagee seeking foreclosure and vacant possession
Decision
Application for foreclosure and vacant possession dismissed for failure to prove compliance with statutory notice requirements

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 mortgagee's application for foreclosure and vacant possession. Although the mortgagor was in default under a loan agreement secured by legal mortgage, the mortgagee failed to prove compliance with the mandatory statutory requirement under section 19 of the Mortgage Act to serve written notice of default giving the mortgagor forty-five working days to remedy the default. Without documentary proof of service of the default notice, the statutory condition precedent to foreclosure remained unmet, and the mortgagee was not entitled to the relief sought.

Outcome

Application for foreclosure and vacant possession dismissed for failure to prove compliance with statutory notice requirements

Facts

The plaintiff mortgagee advanced a loan of UGX 100,000,000 to the defendant mortgagor on 23 May 2019 for twelve months at 2.15% monthly interest, secured by legal mortgage over land comprised in FRV 779 Folio 19 Kyadondo Block 269 Plot 2095 at Lubowa Estates registered in the defendant's name. The plaintiff alleged the defendant defaulted, leaving an outstanding balance of UGX 37,000,000, and that the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 5 June 2023 wherein the defendant undertook to pay the outstanding balance but again defaulted, leaving a balance of UGX 46,990,000. The defendant admitted obtaining the loan but claimed full repayment of principal and interest, denied executing the MOU, and alleged the plaintiff refused to release her certificate of title or provide a loan statement. The plaintiff presented documentary evidence including the loan agreement, registered legal mortgage, loan statement, and the alleged MOU. The plaintiff sought foreclosure and vacant possession by way of Originating Summons under Order 37 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff/mortgagee is entitled to foreclose property comprised in FRV 779 Folio 19 Kyadondo Block 268, Plot 2095, land at Lubowa Estates.
  2. Whether the defendant/mortgagor should give vacant possession of the property comprised in FRV 779 Folio 19 Kyadondo Block 269 Plot 2095 land.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Mortgage Law — Foreclosure — Statutory Prerequisites — Notice of Default
Before a mortgagee may exercise any remedy including foreclosure against a defaulting mortgagor, section 19 of the Mortgage Act mandates that the mortgagee must serve written notice of default on the mortgagor giving them a period of not less than forty-five working days to remedy the default, and the mortgagee must prove both the issuance and service of such notice.
Originating Summons — Proof of Compliance with Statutory Requirements
In proceedings commenced by Originating Summons, the court relies entirely on affidavit and documentary evidence, and a mere assertion in an affidavit that a statutory requirement has been complied with, without attaching documentary proof, is insufficient to satisfy the court of such compliance.
Originating Summons — Appropriateness of Procedure — Mortgage Foreclosure
The use of Originating Summons is appropriate for mortgage foreclosure proceedings under Order 37 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules where the relief sought is foreclosure and vacant possession dependent upon interpretation of loan agreements, mortgage deeds, and related documents, notwithstanding that disputed facts may exist.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Nakabugo v Serunjogi (1981) HCB 58
  • Lewis v Green [1905] 2 Ch 340
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Munwe Enterprises Limited & Anor (HCCS No. 1 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Letshego Uganda Limited v Ingabire Anne Linda 2025 UGHC 1593 (25 August 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.