Mirembe Matovu v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd & Anor (Misc. Application No. 456 of 2012)

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.

Holding

Held that where a court cannot determine from affidavit evidence whether a substantive suit presents a triable issue with strong prospects of success, yet an award of damages does not represent adequate recompense, the balance of convenience favours preservation of the pre-application status quo. Temporary injunction granted to prevent sale of mortgaged property pending trial, as the familial value of a matrimonial home and the protections under Land Act s.39 could not be adequately compensated by damages.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted subject to conditions; matter to proceed to trial

Facts

In May 2006 the 2nd respondent created a mortgage with the 1st respondent bank over the suit property for UGX 133,000,000. In April 2007 he executed an additional loan facility for UGX 182,740,627 over the same property. The 2nd respondent defaulted on his loan obligations and the 1st respondent sought to sell the property. The applicant, the 2nd respondent's wife, filed suit seeking a permanent injunction against the sale of her matrimonial home without her consent, contrary to Land Act s.39. The respondent bank argued the property was incomplete, uninhabitable and unoccupied when the loans were executed, and that the applicant had executed a memorandum of understanding undertaking to pay off the loan but reneged. The applicant applied for a temporary injunction pending determination of the substantive suit.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with real prospects of success in the substantive suit.
2. Whether non-grant of a temporary injunction would cause irreparable damage to the applicant that could not be adequately compensated by an award of damages.
3. Where the court was in doubt as to the foregoing, on which side the balance of convenience lay.

Orders

• Temporary injunction granted restraining the respondents from selling the suit property.
• The substantive suit shall be prosecuted within 2 months from the date of this ruling, failing which at the instance of the applicant/plaintiff, the temporary injunction shall lapse.
• The temporary injunction shall be subject to periodic review during the prosecution of the substantive suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Land Act s.39
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 rule 1(a)

Cases cited (4)

• Francis Babumba & Others v Erusa Bunju (Civil Suit No. 679 of 1990)
• Herbert Kabunga Traders v Stanbic Bank (Misc. Application No. 159 of 2012)
• Giella v Casman Brown (1973) EA 358
• E.L.T Kiyimba-Kaggwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende (1985) HCB 43

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.

• Erongot v Anguria (Miscellaneous Application No. 173 of 2022)

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