Wakilii

Nassamula Jane Mary v Finance Trust Bank and Another (Civil Appeal 7 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 681 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment in land dispute concerning mortgaged property
Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial court judgment in favour of 2nd respondent upheld

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

Held that grounds of appeal must be concise, specific, and free of argument or narrative as required by Order 43 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules; vague grounds are struck out. A mortgagee who complies with statutory notice requirements under the Mortgage Act and sells mortgaged property after the mortgagor's default conveys good title to a bona fide purchaser. A trial court may award general damages in its discretion to compensate a party for deprivation of quiet possession, even absent a formal counterclaim, where the facts support the award.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial court judgment in favour of 2nd respondent upheld

Facts

The appellant claimed to be the registered proprietor of land in Bisanje West. In 2018, she was informed by the 1st respondent bank that the property had been mortgaged by one Busuulwa Gerald in 2012 as security for a loan of UGX 10,000,000. Busuulwa had presented a purchase agreement dated 8 July 2007 showing he bought the land from the appellant for UGX 2,350,000. After Busuulwa defaulted, the bank advertised the property for sale by public auction in April 2014. The 2nd respondent purchased it for UGX 5,500,000 in June 2015. The appellant sued in 2019, alleging the mortgage and sale were fraudulent. The Chief Magistrate's Court found for the defendants, declaring the 2nd respondent the rightful owner, issuing a permanent injunction against the appellant, and awarding the 2nd respondent UGX 5,000,000 in general damages. The appellant appealed on five grounds.

Issues

  1. Whether grounds 1, 3, and 4 of the memorandum of appeal comply with Order 43 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the trial Chief Magistrate erred in holding that the sale of the mortgaged property to the 2nd respondent was lawful under sections 19 and 10 of the Mortgage Act 2009.
  3. Whether the trial Chief Magistrate erred in awarding UGX 5,000,000 as general damages to the 2nd respondent who did not plead damages or make a counterclaim.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Trial court's decision and orders upheld.
  • Costs awarded to the 2nd respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Form and Content — Order 43 rule 1(2)
A memorandum of appeal must set forth grounds of objection concisely and under distinct heads, without argument or narrative. Grounds that are vague, general, or fail to specify the error committed by the trial court with reasonable particularity will be struck out for non-compliance with Order 43 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Banking & Finance — Mortgages — Power of Sale — Statutory Compliance
Where a mortgagor defaults on obligations under a mortgage and remains in default after expiry of the time provided in a rectification of default notice, the mortgagee has a legal power of sale over the mortgaged property under section 25 of the Mortgage Act Cap 239. A mortgagee who complies with statutory notice requirements and sells the property in the absence of any suit or claim by the mortgagor challenging the sale acts lawfully.
Land & Property — Bona Fide Purchaser — Protection under Mortgage Act
A purchaser who acquires mortgaged property at a lawful mortgagee sale obtains good title and is protected by section 28 of the Mortgage Act Cap 239, even where a third party subsequently claims an interest in the property, provided the mortgagee had no notice of fraud and complied with statutory procedures.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Discretion of Trial Court — Appellate Interference
An appellate court will not interfere with an award of general damages by a trial court unless the trial court acted upon a wrong principle of law or the amount is so high or so low as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damages to which the party is entitled. General damages are awarded at the discretion of the court to restore the innocent party to the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Deprivation of Quiet Possession
A court may award general damages for deprivation of quiet possession and enjoyment of property where a party has been prevented from using lawfully acquired property for an extended period, even in the absence of a formal counterclaim for damages, provided the facts on record support the award.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • Pandya v R (1957) EA 336
  • M/S Tatu Naiga & Co. Emporium v Verjee Brothers Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2000)
  • Kateeba Rose and 3 Others v Mugyenzi Justus and 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2023)
  • Ndaula v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 290 of 2010)
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edward (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Broome v Cassel & Co [1972] AC 1027
  • Uganda Commercial Bank v Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305
  • Charles Acire v M. Engonda (High Court Civil Suit No. 143 of 1993)
  • Kibimba Rice v Umar Salim (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nassamula Jane Mary v Finance Trust Bank and Another (Civil Appeal 7 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 681 (18 August 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.