Ndiburungi v Crane Bank (In Liquidation) & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 124 of 2017)
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 court dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Held that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case where it admitted indebtedness under clear written facility letters and sought to rely on an alleged oral contract to vary the written terms. The court found that oral contracts exceeding UGX 500,000 are unenforceable under the Contracts Act 2010 s.10(5), that the applicant did not prove the alleged oral agreement, and that any loss could be compensated by damages. An injunction should not issue where indebtedness is admitted.
Outcome
Application for temporary injunction dismissed with costs to respondents
Facts
On 7 July 2014, Crane Bank advanced Ndiburungi Sugar Works Limited UGX 4.5 billion for 12 months, secured by mortgage over two properties. On 8 June 2015, Crane Bank advanced a further UGX 3 billion. On 6 February 2016, the applicant obtained a bridge loan of USD 1 million. All facilities were on demand terms as stated in the facility letters and secured by demand promissory notes. On 23 January 2017, DFCU Bank, which had taken over Crane Bank's assets and liabilities, issued a notice of default giving 45 days to rectify. The applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 127 of 2017 and applied for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from recalling the loans and commencing recovery measures. The applicant alleged an oral agreement that the bridge loans would be converted into European Investment Bank development loans at low interest rates, which the respondents denied.
Issues
- Whether the applicant has a prima facie case with probability of success.
- Whether the applicant stands to suffer irreparable loss or damage if the application is not granted.
- Whether the balance of convenience, in case of doubt in resolving the first two issues, is in favour of the applicant.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
Cases cited (8)
- Kiyimba Kaggwa v Katende [1985] HCB 43
- Ramanlal T. Bhatt v R [1957] EA 332
- Pan Afric Impex (U) Limited Vs Berclays Bank PLC HCT-00-CC-MA-0804-2007
- Black Pool and Fydle Aero Club Vs Black pool BC [1990] 1 WLR 1195 at 1202
- John Kaggwa Vs Insaat Turizm & Others HCT-OO-CC-CS-0318-2012
- Jiwali v Jiwali [1968] EA 547
- Smile Communication Limited v Eaton Towers Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 791 of 2016)
- American Cyanamid Vs Ethicon Limited [1975] 2 WLR 316
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.