Mityana Diocese Development Trust & Another v Namugenyi (Originating Summons 13 of 2023)
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 held that where a mortgagee exercised its power of sale following the mortgagor's default, and the property was lawfully sold and transferred to a purchaser, the purchaser as registered proprietor is entitled to vacant possession. The court granted the order for delivery of vacant possession, finding that the Defendant's continued occupation after sale and transfer was unlawful. Costs followed the event.
Outcome
Defendant ordered to deliver vacant possession of the mortgaged property to the Plaintiffs
Facts
On 10 July 2019, Equity Bank granted the Defendant a credit facility of UGX 120,000,000 secured by a leasehold property at Mityana. The Defendant defaulted on repayment obligations. Despite notices and a final demand, the outstanding amount of UGX 130,338,402 remained unpaid. The Bank's recovery agents advertised the property, which was sold to the 1st Plaintiff (Mityana Diocese Development Trust). The property was transferred to the 1st Plaintiff on 5 January 2023. The Defendant refused to vacate the premises and did not challenge the sale. The Defendant could not be traced for service and did not enter any reply or appearance after substituted service was effected.
Issues
- Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to delivery of vacant possession of the mortgaged property by the Defendant?
- Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the costs of the suit?
Orders
- The Defendant is hereby ordered to deliver to the Plaintiffs vacant possession of the mortgaged land.
- Costs of the suit are awarded to the Plaintiffs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 37 rule 4
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.24(2)(c)
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.29(1)
- Mortgage Act 2009 s.29(2)(c)
- Registration of Titles Act Cap. 230 s.59
- Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.27(2)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.98
- Evidence Act s.101-103
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
Cases cited (4)
- Guaranty Trust Bank (U) Ltd v Dokwals (U) Ltd & Another (Originating Summons No. 1 of 2021)
- Diamond Trust Bank (U) Ltd v Semakula Joseph Herman & Another (Originating Summons No. 1 of 2019)
- Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
- Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Co. Ltd (1981) HCB 35
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.