Sengendo v Bank of Uganda (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0327 OI.'2023)

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.

Holding

Application for discovery and inspection of documents dismissed. The court held that the applicant failed to establish that the respondent Bank of Uganda had custody or control of the documents sought, as the respondent did not take over the defunct Uganda Credit and Savings Bank. The applicant also failed to demonstrate prior attempts to obtain the documents voluntarily. The Commissioner Land Registration was identified as the appropriate office to seek inspection of land records.

Outcome

Application for discovery and inspection dismissed

Facts

The applicant, Sengendo David, is one of eleven beneficiaries to the estate of the late Hamu Walusimbi. The beneficiaries were sued in Civil Suit No. 40 of 2016 by beneficiaries of the estate of the late Bumbakali Lutakome for cancellation of certificates of title for property comprised in Mailo Register Volume 356 Folio 6. The applicant sought inspection of three documents from the Bank of Uganda: a mortgage deed between the former Uganda Credit and Savings Bank and the late Bumbakali Lutakome; land transfer documents relating to the property; and a bank default notice. The applicant claimed these documents were necessary as evidence in the pending civil suit. The applicant averred that Bumbakali Lutakome mortgaged the property, defaulted on repayment, and the bank sold the property to Hamu Walusimbi. The respondent Bank of Uganda opposed the application, stating it was established in 1966, eleven years after the mortgage was created, did not take over the Uganda Credit and Savings Bank, and does not have custody of the requested documents.

Issues

1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for the grant of the application for discovery and inspection of documents.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.22(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 10 Rule 12(1)
• Registration of Titles Act Cap 240 s.37

Cases cited (2)

• Simbamanyo Estates Ltd and Another v Equity Bank and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 583 of 2022)
• Simbamanyo Estates Ltd and Peter Kamya

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