Muddu Awulira v Buye Abayita Ababiri Growers Coop Society Limited & 3 Ors (HCT-00-CC-CS 627 of 2014)

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.

Holding

Held that a beneficiary who has obtained a certificate of no objection and filed for letters of administration has locus standi to sue to preserve estate property. Section 91 of the Financial Institutions Act 2004 protects only financial institutions under statutory management, not the liquidator Bank of Uganda. A financial institution placed under statutory management for more than six months transitions to receivership under s.89(6), and section 91 protection ceases. Where fifteen years had elapsed since management commenced, the institution was no longer protected and could be sued without leave or consent.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; suit to proceed to trial

Facts

The plaintiff's grandfather, Alamanzane Senoga, died intestate on 1 September 1979 leaving land comprised in Gomba Block 269 plots 16 and 17. The plaintiff obtained a certificate of no objection to secure letters of administration. Upon conducting a search, he discovered that plot 17 had been mortgaged in 2005 by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant under a power of attorney allegedly granted by the deceased. The plaintiff alleged fraud, as his grandfather died in 1979 and could not have granted a power of attorney 26 years after his death. The 2nd defendant was placed under receivership in 1999 by Bank of Uganda. The 4th defendant, acting as agent for the liquidator, gave notice in 2012 of intention to foreclose. The plaintiff filed suit in 2014 seeking declarations of fraud, mesne profits, and release of title. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants raised preliminary objections on locus standi and non-compliance with s.91 of the Financial Institutions Act requiring leave or consent before suing a financial institution under management.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to bring this action.
2. Whether there is any legal bar from suing Bank of Uganda.
3. Whether there is need for leave before Bank of Uganda can be sued as a statutory liquidator of a financial institution under s.91 of the Financial Institutions Act 2004.
4. Whether there was need for consent of Bank of Uganda or leave of court to sue the 2nd defendant.

Orders

• Preliminary objections dismissed.
• Costs to abide the final decision of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (14)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order VI rule 30
• Civil Procedure Rules Order VII rule 11
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 1(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 1(e)
• Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.91
• Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.87(3)
• Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.88
• Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.88(1)(a)
• Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.88(1)(b)
• Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.89
• Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.89(6)
• Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.99
• Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.100
• Financial Institutions Act 2004 s.100(1)(a)

Cases cited (5)

• Auto Garage and Others v Motokov (No.3) (1971) EA 514
• Jeraj Shariff & Co v Chotal Fancy Stores [1960] EA 374
• Prof. Gordon Wavamunno v Sekyanzi Sempijja (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2010)
• Vincent Tamukadde v Serunjogi (HCCS No. 85 of 1995)
• Kanyeihamba and 320 Others v Nzeyi and 2 Others (HCT-00-CC-CS-361-2010)

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