Lubega Wasswa and Another v Housing Finance Company (U) Limited (Now known as Housing Finance Bank Limited) ( (Civil Suit No. 152 of 2019)
Observed later treatment
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 the sale of the mortgaged property by the defendant bank to the second plaintiff by private treaty was lawful under Mortgage Act Cap 229 s.10 and the mortgage deed terms, as the first plaintiff had consented to private treaty sale, repeatedly defaulted on the loan despite notices, and the deposit made three days before completion of sale did not constitute waiver of the bank's right to foreclose. The first plaintiff lost his equitable right of redemption. The second plaintiff was entitled to vacant possession of the property.
Outcome
First plaintiff's suit dismissed. Second plaintiff granted vacant possession with eviction order against first plaintiff and awarded UGX 60,000,000 in general damages plus interest and costs against the defendant bank.
Facts
The first plaintiff obtained two loans totalling UGX 25,000,000 from the defendant bank in 2005-2006, secured by mortgage over property at Block 210 Plot 1353 Kyadondo. He defaulted repeatedly between 2007-2010 despite statutory notices. The defendant advertised the property for sale by public auction or private treaty in September 2010 with sale date of 8 October 2010. The second plaintiff made an offer to purchase for UGX 73,000,000 in November 2010, which was accepted. On 3 December 2010, the first plaintiff deposited UGX 4,500,000 toward his arrears. On 6 December 2010, the second plaintiff paid 10% deposit. On 21 December 2010, the sale was completed by private treaty to the second plaintiff who paid the full purchase price, received the certificate of title and signed transfer forms. The first plaintiff then sought to block the transfer by lodging a caveat. The defendant recovered the amounts due and deposited the balance of UGX 44,053,088.52 in the first plaintiff's account. The second plaintiff has been denied vacant possession for over ten years.
Issues
- Whether the sale of property comprised in Block 210 Plot 1353 Kyadondo by the Defendant to the 2nd Plaintiff was lawful.
- Whether the 2nd Plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of the property comprised in Block 210 Plot 1353 Kyadondo.
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- The suit by the first plaintiff against the defendant is dismissed with costs to the defendant.
- An order for delivery of vacant possession of the property comprised in Block 210 Plot 1353 Kyadondo is granted in favour of the second plaintiff.
- An eviction order is granted against the first plaintiff.
- The second plaintiff is awarded general damages of UGX 60,000,000.
- Interest on general damages is awarded at 6% per annum from the date of judgment until payment in full.
- The second plaintiff is awarded costs of this suit.
- Interest on costs is awarded at 3% per annum from the date of filing the suit until payment in full.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
Cases cited (11)
- Amratlal Purshottam Bhimji and Another v Gian Singh Bhambra and 3 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 239 of 2009 consolidated with High Court Civil Suit No. 298 of 2010)
- Jeane Frances Nakamya v DFCU Bank Ltd and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 813 of 2007)
- Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Another v Edward Musisi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2010)
- Payne v Cardiff Rural Urban Council [1932] KB 254
- Nurdin Bandali v Lombark Tanganyika Ltd [1963] EA 304
- Kyambadde v Mpigi District Administration [1983] HCB 44
- Borham-Carter v Hyde Park Hotel [1948] 64 TLR
- Crown Beverages v Sendi (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
- Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
- Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (No. 2) [1970] EA 469
- Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd (1981) HCB 35
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.