Mugabi v Housing Finance Co. Ltd and Anor (Miscellaneous Application No 202 of 2004)
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
Application for preservation order dismissed. Where property has been sold pursuant to mortgagee's power of sale and transferred to a purchaser for value who is now the registered proprietor, and where the applicant's affidavit does not rebut the purchaser's claim of having purchased with the applicant's consent to the sale mode, the court will not exercise its discretion under O.37 r.7(a) CPR to grant a preservation order.
Outcome
Application dismissed
Facts
The applicant was the registered owner of Mailo Land comprised in Kibuga Block 29 plot 110 until 30 October 2003 when it was transferred by the first respondent (Housing Finance Co. Ltd). The applicant claimed the transfer occurred under dubious circumstances. On 15 November 2003, the applicant and his family were evicted from the property by an auctioneer with about 20 people. The applicant alleged the first respondent sold the property to the second respondent for UGX 125 million when it had been insured for UGX 225 million replacement value in 1997, and that he owed UGX 96,477,228.34 under the mortgage. The applicant claimed the sale was unlawful, not advertised as required under the Mortgage Decree, and constituted deliberate underselling. The second respondent deposed that he purchased the property for value pursuant to an express power of sale conferred on the first respondent as mortgagee, and after being satisfied that the applicant had consented to the mode of sale. The second respondent was the registered proprietor and had conferred third party rights through tenancy agreements with four tenants in occupation.
Issues
- Whether the applicant is entitled to a preservation order for property now registered in the name of the second respondent who purchased it as mortgagee's sale.
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.48 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.37 r.1(a)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.37 r.1(b)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.37 r.7(a)
- Mortgage Decree
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.