Wakilii

Mayirikiti General Agency Ltd & Anor v Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Anor (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 469 of 2015)

High Court · [2015] UGCOMMC 151 · 2015 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of costs order in prior civil suit arising from mortgage dispute
Decision
Costs order in the head suit corrected to award costs against the First Respondent instead of to it

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 granted the application for review, finding an error apparent on the face of the record in the original costs order. Where the court had found the First Respondent liable for unlawfully purporting to sell mortgaged property while simultaneously having made redemption arrangements with the borrowers, and had faulted the First Respondent on all issues, the costs should have been awarded against the First Respondent rather than to it. The error was corrected to award costs of the head suit against the First Respondent. Each party to bear own costs of the review application as the error was occasioned by the court itself.

Outcome

Costs order in the head suit corrected to award costs against the First Respondent instead of to it

Facts

The Applicants had successfully prosecuted High Court Civil Suit No. 46 of 2014 against the Respondents concerning mortgaged property comprising Kyadondo Block 210 Plot 492 Kampala. The court found in favour of the Applicants on all issues, holding that the First Respondent had unlawfully purported to sell the mortgaged property to the Second Respondent while simultaneously having made arrangements with the Applicants for redemption of the mortgage. Despite finding the First Respondent culpable on all issues, the trial judge had awarded costs of the suit to the First Respondent. The Applicants brought this review application seeking correction of the costs order on the ground that it contained an error apparent on the face of the record, arguing that costs should follow the event and be awarded to them as the successful party.

Issues

  1. Whether the court made an error apparent on the face of the record in awarding costs to the First Respondent in the head suit when the Applicants had succeeded on all issues.
  2. Whether the matter was properly brought by way of review or should have been pursued by way of appeal.

Orders

  • Application for review granted.
  • Error in the court record in High Court Civil Suit No. 46 of 2014 corrected to read: 'For avoidance of doubt I would award costs of this suit against the First Defendant accordingly.'
  • Each party to bear own costs of the review application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Costs Orders
Where a court finds a party culpable on all issues and in favour of the opposing party, but then awards costs to the culpable party, this constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record which may be corrected on review.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Costs Follow the Event — Successful Party
Costs ordinarily follow the event and are awarded to the successful party unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from this general rule.
Banking & Finance — Mortgages — Foreclosure — Proper Procedure
Where money is lent on the security of land, the lender gets nothing more than that security, and where a lender wishes to foreclose a mortgage, its only remedy is to sue the borrower under Order 37 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules by originating summons before a judge in chambers to obtain specific orders of foreclosure.
Banking & Finance — Mortgages — Sale of Mortgaged Property — Redemption Arrangements
Where a mortgagee has entered into fresh arrangements with the mortgagor for redemption of mortgaged property, the mortgagee's only option is to continue with that redemption process, and any purported sale of the mortgaged property without following correct foreclosure procedures is unlawful.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

  • Nyamugogo and Nyamugogo Advocates v Kogo [2001] 1 EA 173
  • Global Trust Bank v Francis Mugisha (High Court Civil Suit No. 5 of 2012)
  • Commercial Microfinance Ltd v Davis Edgar Kayondo (High Court Civil Suit No. 12 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mayirikiti General Agency Ltd & Anor v Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Anor (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 469 of 2015) [2015] UGCommC 151 (10 November 2015)
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.