Wakilii

Popina General Supplies & 2 Ors v Stanbic Bank of Uganda Limited [2015] UGSC 125

Supreme Court · 2015 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for a temporary injunction in a pending civil suit
Decision
Application partly allowed; temporary injunction granted over the 2nd applicant's land but refused over the 3rd applicant's already-transferred land

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 held that the applicants had raised a prima facie case in their mortgage-sale dispute, there being no rebuttal of the loan facility or the sale of the suit land. However, a temporary injunction will not be granted in vain: because the 3rd applicant's land (Block 405) had already been transferred to the 4th respondent, that prayer was refused, the applicants being left to pursue reversal if they succeed at trial. The injunction was granted over the 2nd applicant's land (Block 438 Plots 459 and 460), valued at over Shs 1.7 billion, which remained at risk of disposal. The application having succeeded only in part, each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Outcome

Application partly allowed; temporary injunction granted over the 2nd applicant's land but refused over the 3rd applicant's already-transferred land

Facts

Stanbic Bank extended overdraft, guarantee and exposure facilities of about Shs 3 billion to the applicants to finance business projects. The suit land was offered and accepted as security, a debenture was placed over the 1st applicant's assets, and the 2nd and 3rd applicants gave personal guarantees. The applicants defaulted. The applicants alleged that, without notice and without considering the alternative remedies under the debenture or in receivership, the bank sold the suit land to the 2nd respondent for a low sum, followed by subsequent transfers to the 4th respondent. The applicants contend the sale and transfers were fraudulent, null and void, and also complain that the bank failed to account for rent collected from the 2nd applicant's property. They filed HCCS No. 350 of 2013 challenging the sale, and brought this application for a temporary injunction. By the time of the application, the 3rd applicant's land (Block 405) had already been transferred to the 4th respondent, while the 2nd applicant's land (Block 438 Plots 459 and 460), valued at over Shs 1.7 billion, remained at risk of disposal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants established a prima facie case with a probability of success in the main suit.
  2. Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable damage if the temporary injunction were refused.
  3. Whether a temporary injunction should issue restraining the respondents from transferring or disposing of the suit properties pending disposal of the main suit.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction doth issue restraining the 1st and 3rd respondents from disposing of the 2nd applicant's property comprised in Busiro Block 438 Plots 459 and 460 until the main suit is heard and disposed of.
  • The prayer for an injunction in respect of the 3rd applicant's land comprised in Block 405 Plot 40 Bukasa, Wakiso is denied.
  • Each party to meet its own costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant
A temporary injunction may be granted where the applicant shows a prima facie case with a probability of success in the main suit and that they are likely to suffer irreparable damage if the injunction is refused; where the court is in doubt on these considerations, it decides the application on the balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Standard
A prima facie case is not a tight case; it requires only that the court be satisfied there is a serious question to be tried, the applicant being required to show a probability of success but not success itself.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Injunction Not Granted in Vain
A temporary injunction is a discretionary order that will not be granted in vain; where the act sought to be restrained, such as a transfer and registration of land, has already been completed, the order will be refused, leaving the applicant to pursue reversal at trial if successful.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Submissions of Fact Unsupported by Affidavit
Matters of fact stated in submissions but not backed by affidavit evidence amount to evidence from the bar and will not be considered by the court.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (4)

  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Francis Babumba and Others v Erisa Bunjo (HCCS No. 697 of 1999)
  • Robert Kavuma v M/s Hotel International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
  • Prof. Peter Anyang Nyong'o and Others v The Attorney General of Kenya and Others (EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Popina General Supplies & 2 Ors v Stanbic Bank of Uganda Limited [2015] UGSC 125 (16 October 2015)
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.