Wakilii

Multiple Industries Limited v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 544 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 109 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim injunction arising from pending applications for temporary injunction and review of consent judgment
Decision
Interim injunction granted restraining foreclosure proceedings pending determination of substantive application for temporary injunction

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 granted an interim injunction restraining the respondent bank from commencing foreclosure or execution proceedings against the applicant pending determination of a substantive application for temporary injunction. The court held that where a substantive application for temporary injunction is pending and there is a serious threat of execution before its hearing, an interim order should issue to preserve the status quo and prevent the substantive application from being rendered nugatory.

Outcome

Interim injunction granted restraining foreclosure proceedings pending determination of substantive application for temporary injunction

Facts

Multiple Industries Limited obtained various credit facilities from Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd, including a term loan of USD 499,300 and overdraft facilities. By January 2023, the applicant defaulted on repayments. On 26 February 2024, the parties executed a consent judgment in Civil Suit No. 006 of 2024. The bank restructured the loan on 14 July 2023 and granted the applicant until 31 July 2025 to obtain alternative financing to settle outstanding debts. The applicant alleged that the bank made false reports to the Credit Reference Bureau, damaging its credit rating and preventing it from obtaining refinancing. The applicant filed Misc. Application No. 542 of 2025 for temporary injunction and Misc. Application No. 541 of 2025 to review and set aside the consent judgment. With the 31 July 2025 deadline approaching, the applicant sought an interim order to prevent the bank from commencing foreclosure proceedings before the substantive applications could be heard.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a pending substantive application in this Court for an Order for a temporary injunction and stay of execution.
  2. Whether there is an imminent threat to foreclose or execute.

Orders

  • An interim order restraining the respondent, its representatives, agents, nominees, assignees or any other person deriving authority from the respondent from commencing recovery/foreclosure/execution proceedings against the applicant until the hearing and final determination of High Court Misc. Application No. 542 of 2025.
  • The parties to appear in court on 13 October 2025 after court vacation for directions on High Court Misc. Application No. 542 of 2025.
  • Parties instructed to file lean submissions in support or opposition of the application by 13 October 2025.
  • Costs of this application to abide the result of the substantive application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Injunctions — Requirements for Grant
For an application for an interim order of stay, it suffices to show that a substantive application is pending and that there is a serious threat of execution before the hearing of the pending substantive application. It is not necessary to pre-empt consideration of matters necessary in deciding whether or not to grant the substantive application for stay.
Civil Procedure — Interim Injunctions — Nature and Purpose
Interim injunctions are equitable in nature and are not argued on the basis of their substantiveness but rather on grounds that a substantive application is pending and that there is a serious threat of execution before the hearing of the pending substantive application. Interim orders are for a short duration and are provided to preserve the status quo, bearing in mind court constraints that may make it impossible to dispense with the main application with the urgency required.
Civil Procedure — Interim Injunctions — Relationship to Substantive Application
Interlocutory applications cannot be brought as substantive causes for they are by their nature equitable reliefs and can only issue if there is on record a main application for a temporary injunction. Interlocutory applications are intended to preserve a given status quo and an interim application cannot stand alone as a substantive cause.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • Monitor Publications and Others v Pius Bigirimana (High Court Civil Application No. 4 of 2023)
  • Huang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2008)
  • Alcon International Ltd v The New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2010)
  • Bigirwa Moses and Another v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (Miscellaneous Cause No. 63 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Multiple Industries Limited v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 544 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 109 (30 July 2025)
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.