Luyimbazi Vs Uganda Commercial Bank (Civil Appeal No.50 of 2004) [2019] UGCA 3 (17 January 2019)
[2019] UGCA 3
Luyimbazi v Uganda Commercial Bank (Civil Appeal No.50 of 2004)
Court of Appeal
· [2019] UGCA 3
· 2019
Appeal Dismissed
AI-generated summary
↓ Download
Pin to watchlist
Add to matter
Observed later treatment
Cited — treatment unverified
cited in 3 (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 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits.
Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years.
Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.
Judicial journey
Appeal & case history
Follow this matter from the decision below through each appellate court.
Outcome not classified
Read the higher decision to confirm the precise result.
Supreme Court decision located in the Wakilii corpus. Linked from court records and operative language in the judgments.
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 of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant mortgagor had in fact received the requisite demand notice notifying him of the borrower's default, the receipt of which prompted him to seek a meeting with the bank. The court held that the validity of the sale and the issues of advertisement and valuation were never pleaded or in issue at trial, so the appellant could not raise a new case on appeal. On fraud and bad faith, the court reaffirmed that fraud must be proved strictly, beyond the ordinary civil balance of probabilities, and that the appellant had failed to prove any of the nine pleaded particulars. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; High Court dismissal of the suit upheld
Facts
Princess Victoria Nabaloga and Prince Captain Jjuko Walugembe, a director of J.W. Victoria Agro Industries Limited, asked the appellant to assist with a land title to secure a loan from the respondent bank. The appellant deposited his land title to Block 262, Plot 444, Mobutu Road, Makindye with the respondent. A mortgage was executed over the property and the respondent extended a UGX 5,000,000 overdraft to the company. The company defaulted despite repeated demands. The bank issued a demand notice addressed to the borrower, a copy of which reached the appellant, who was also the LCII Chairman of the area, and a separate seven-day notice to settle the loan before sale. Upon receiving the notices the appellant met the bank's officials but did not settle the debt. The respondent sold the mortgaged property in April 1999. The appellant sued, alleging improper execution of the mortgage, lack of demand, invalid sale, and fraud or bad faith. The High Court dismissed the suit with costs.
Issues
- Whether there was a valid demand on the appellant (mortgagor) to pay the overdraft and whether such demand was necessary in the circumstances.
- Whether the appellant received notices prior to the eviction of his tenants and the sale of the suit property.
- Whether the suit property was validly sold, including whether it was properly advertised and valued before sale.
- Whether there was fraud or bad faith on the part of the respondent in exercising its power of sale.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Mortgages — Demand Notice to Mortgagor — Sufficiency of Notice Received
A mortgagor is entitled to receive a notice of demand notifying him of the borrower's default, but where the evidence shows the mortgagor in fact received the requisite notice he cannot maintain that no demand was made, even if the notice reached him incidentally.
Appeals — Departure from Pleadings — New Case on Appeal
An appellant cannot raise on appeal grounds or issues that were neither pleaded nor canvassed at trial; such grounds are incompetent and will be dismissed.
Standard of Proof — Fraud — Heavier Than Balance of Probabilities
Fraud must be proved strictly, the burden being heavier than the balance of probabilities ordinarily applied in civil matters, and particulars of fraud must be pleaded and proven.
Mortgagee's Power of Sale — Duty to Act in Good Faith
A mortgagee exercising its power of sale must act in good faith and sell at a reasonable price, but an allegation of bad faith in the conduct of the sale must be specifically pleaded and proved.
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (5)
- Uganda Credit and Savings v Eriyazali Senkuba [1966] EA 50
- Yosia Sajabi v Musa Umar Amreliwalla (1956) 23 EACA 71
- Cooperative Bank Limited (in Liquidation) v Shell Kasese Services Ltd (HCCS No. 140 of 2005)
- Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
- Fr. Narcensio Bemugisa & Ors v Eric Tibebaaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
Cases citing this judgment (3)
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.
Luyimbazi Vs Uganda Commercial Bank (Civil Appeal No.50 of 2004) [2019] UGCA 3 (17 January 2019)
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.