Wakilii

Namuwongo Community Foundation Ltd v Dmk Capital Ltd and Others (Civil Suit No. 606 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 252 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit challenging the lawfulness of a loan facility, mortgage foreclosure, and subsequent sale of mortgaged property
Decision
Plaintiff's claim for recovery of property dismissed; loan restructured with reduced interest; plaintiff ordered to vacate property; 2nd defendant's title upheld and counterclaim for vacant possession granted

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 while the loan facility was lawful as a top-up advance secured by an existing mortgage, the interest rates of 10% per month and 20% default rate were unconscionable and violated statutory prohibitions on compound interest. The foreclosure and sale were procedurally lawful as all statutory notices were properly served and the property was advertised for the mandatory period. The second defendant acquired good title as a bona fide purchaser. The court restructured the loan to 2.8% monthly simple interest, awarded nominal damages for the illegal interest terms, but upheld the sale and ordered the plaintiff to vacate the property.

Outcome

Plaintiff's claim for recovery of property dismissed; loan restructured with reduced interest; plaintiff ordered to vacate property; 2nd defendant's title upheld and counterclaim for vacant possession granted

Facts

The plaintiff NGO obtained a UGX 50 million loan from the 1st defendant in October 2021, secured by a registered mortgage which was repaid within three months but the mortgage remained on title. In September 2022, the plaintiff applied for a second loan of UGX 70 million intended as a top-up to clear an outstanding balance from the earlier facility. The loan agreement stipulated 10% monthly interest and 20% default rate with two-month repayment period. The plaintiff defaulted and the 1st defendant issued demand notice, notice of default, and notice of sale, then advertised the property in the Daily Monitor. The 2nd defendant emerged as highest bidder and purchased the property for UGX 115 million in April 2023, being registered as proprietor in May 2023. The plaintiff challenged the interest rates as unconscionable, claimed improper service of notices, and alleged the property was undervalued and the 2nd defendant failed to conduct proper due diligence.

Issues

  1. Whether the loan facility between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant was lawful?
  2. Whether the foreclosure and sale of the suit property by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant was lawful?
  3. Whether the Plaint discloses a cause of action against the 2nd Defendant?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Declaration made that the interest rates of 10% per month, 20% default rate, and 1% per day penalty charged by the 1st Defendant were illegal, unconscionable, and unenforceable.
  • Order issued for judicial restructure of the 2022 loan facility; principal of UGX 70,000,000 to attract simple interest rate of 2.8% per month from date of disbursement until date of sale to 2nd Defendant.
  • 1st Defendant ordered to file certified account of sale proceeds within 15 days; any surplus after satisfying restructured debt to be paid to Plaintiff.
  • Declaration made that Ahumuza Paul Humura Benjamin is the lawful registered proprietor of the suit property.
  • Order for vacant possession issued against Plaintiff; Plaintiff to vacate property within 30 days.
  • Commissioner Land Registration directed to vacate caveat registered by Plaintiff under Instrument No. KCCA-00104679.
  • General damages of UGX 10,000,000 awarded to Plaintiff against 1st Defendant.
  • Costs of suit awarded to 2nd Defendant against Plaintiff; Plaintiff and 1st Defendant to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Unconscionable Terms — Interest Rates — Statutory Limits
A monthly interest rate of 10% (120% per annum) and a default rate of 20% per month (240% per annum) are unconscionable and unenforceable under Section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and violate Section 86 of the Tier 4 Microfinance Institutions and Money Lenders Act which prohibits compound interest and increased rates upon default.
Banking & Finance — Mortgage — Top-Up Loans — Use of Existing Security
A mortgagee may rely on an existing registered mortgage to secure a subsequent top-up loan intended to clear an outstanding balance from an earlier facility under Section 9(1) of the Mortgage Act, which permits further advances under a mortgage instrument, provided the mortgage remains uncancelled on the certificate of title.
Land & Property — Mortgage — Equitable Mortgage — Enforceability Between Parties
An unregistered mortgage remains enforceable between the parties under Section 2(5) of the Mortgage Act where the borrower deposited the certificate of title with intent to create security for a debt, creating an equitable mortgage notwithstanding the absence of formal registration.
Land & Property — Mortgage — Foreclosure — Statutory Notices — Service and Proof
A mortgagee satisfies the statutory notice requirements under Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Mortgage Act where demand notice and notice of default are served at the mortgagor's registered address and the mortgagor subsequently acknowledges receipt of the notice of sale in their own correspondence, creating an estoppel against denial of the earlier notices.
Land & Property — Mortgage — Power of Sale — Procedural Compliance
A mortgagee lawfully exercises the power of sale under Section 25(1) of the Mortgage Act where the mortgagor remains in default after expiry of the 45-day rectification period, the property is advertised for at least 30 days in a newspaper of wide circulation as required by Section 26(2), and the sale price exceeds the forced sale valuation, satisfying the duty of care to obtain the best price under Section 26(1).
Land & Property — Registration — Bona Fide Purchaser — Indefeasibility of Title
A purchaser who acquires property through a lawful mortgage foreclosure sale after conducting due diligence at the land registry and paying full consideration is a bona fide purchaser for value whose title is indefeasible under Section 59 of the Registration of Titles Act and protected by Section 165 against claims of fraud unless specific acts of fraud are proved against the purchaser personally.
Contract Law — Judicial Restructure — Severance of Illegal Terms
Where a loan agreement contains illegal and unconscionable interest provisions, the court may under Section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 33 of the Mortgage Act restructure the transaction by severing the illegal interest terms while upholding the principal debt, ensuring the lender recovers the principal with just interest but not the extortionate fruit of illegal terms.

Legislation cited (30)

Cases cited (25)

  • Multiservice Bookbinding v Mardem 2 ALL ER 489; Ch 84
  • R. L Jain Limited v Nganda Kaweesa Fredrick (High Court Civil Suit No. 826 of 2024)
  • Jas Ventures International Ltd v Atuhaire Juliet (High Court Civil Suit No. 676 of 2021)
  • Fredrick J.K Zaabwe v Orient Bank & Ors (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2004)
  • Macfory V United Africa Co. Ltd 3 ALL ER 1169 at 1172
  • Mathiya v Housing Finance Company of Kenya & Anor 1 EA 133
  • Bbaale Samuel Wakulira V Cairo Bank & 2 Ors HCB 26
  • Greenland Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v Wasswa Birigwa (High Court Civil Suit No. 26 of 2004)
  • Bbaale Samuel Wakulira v Cairo International Bank & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 149 of 2019)
  • Kanoonya David v Kivumbi & Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 616 of 2003)
  • Simba (K) Ltd & Ors v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
  • Stroms v Hutchinson (1905) AC, 515
  • Hall Brothers SC. Co. Limited v Young (1939) 1 KB, 748
  • Mungecha v Attorney General HCB 55
  • Nasser Galiwango Mukasa v Uganda Micro credit Foundation Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 012 of 2018)
  • Nabaasa Robinah v Muchotara Phillion & Anor (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 227 of 2023)
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank & 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2006)
  • Hellen Namazzi v Banadda Kayondo Kiwanuka & 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 016 of 2019)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (no. 3) EA 514
  • Godfrey Ojwang v Wilson Bagonza (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2004)
  • Nipon Norathaim Bhatia v Crane Bank Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2006)
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Sulaiman Kamulegeya v Nansamba Robinah & Anor (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 227 of 2023)
  • Canada V. Greenwood (Fed CA, 2023)
  • Annet Zimbiha v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 109 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namuwongo Community Foundation Ltd v Dmk Capital Ltd and Others (Civil Suit No. 606 of 2023) [2026] UGCommC 252 (24 May 2026)
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.