Sentongo v I and M Bank Limited (formerly ) Orient bank (u) Limited (Civil Application 113 of 2023)

Observed later treatment

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

The single Justice held that although the applicant established a prima facie appeal with a likelihood of success and that the balance of convenience favoured him as the party in possession, he had not shown irreparable damage (the commercial property's value being ascertainable and compensable in money) and had failed to provide security for due performance of the decree as required under Order 43 r.4(3) CPR. The stay of execution was therefore refused. Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations did not apply since the applicant sought to stop rather than adjourn the auction. Applying the same prima facie and balance-of-convenience findings, the Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit property pending appeal.

Outcome

Application allowed in part: temporary injunction granted to preserve the suit property; stay of execution refused for failure to provide security for due performance of the decree

Facts

The applicant constructed a commercial property, Segawa Market, on Kibuga Block 12. He obtained loan facilities from the respondent bank, executing a facility letter dated 22 February 2016 for UGX 5 billion. The facilities were later consolidated into one term loan. The applicant claimed the bank breached the facility by failing to disburse the agreed sums, while crediting his account and immediately liquidating the loan. The bank claimed the applicant defaulted, issuing default notices in December 2016 and June 2017. The applicant sued (HCCS 464 of 2018) and the bank counter-sued (HCCS 036 of 2019); the suits were consolidated. On 23 December 2022 the High Court entered judgment for the bank for UGX 10,384,308,959 plus UGX 150,000,000 general damages. The applicant appealed (Civil Appeal No. 0001 of 2023) and sought to stay execution and restrain the respondent, which had advertised the property for sale by public auction.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for grant of a substantive order for stay of execution pending appeal.
2. Whether Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 applies where the applicant seeks to stop rather than adjourn a sale by public auction.
3. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for grant of a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from selling or interfering with the suit property pending appeal.

Orders

• An order of temporary injunction is issued restraining the respondent from carrying out any steps or interference with the suit property comprised in Block 12 Plots 251 and 825 Mengo and Block 12 Plot 250 Mengo until the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. 0001 of 2023.
• The application for a stay of execution is denied.
• Costs shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 105
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 43 r.4(3)
• Mortgage Regulations 2012 reg.13(1)

Cases cited (12)

• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
• Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2020)
• Gashumba Maniraguha v Samuel Nkundiye (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2015)
• Sssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
• Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter & 5 Others [2013] e KLR
• Osman Kassim Ramathan vs. Century Bottling Company Ltd
• Giella v Cassman Brown & Co [1973] EA 358
• American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504
• Devani v Bhadresa and Another (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1971)
• Woodmore Energy Consultancy Ltd and Others v Guaranty Trust Bank (U) Ltd (Civil Application No. 270 of 2016)
• Shiv Construction v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
• Attorney General v Nakibuule Gladys Kisekka [2018] UGSC 30

Cases citing this judgment (7)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• [2026] UGCOMMC 251
• Masette Stephen and Another v Khainza Hellen (Miscellaneous Application No. 60 of 2025)
• CN Sugar Limited and Another v Uganda Sugar Manufacturers Association (USMA) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application 0073 of 2025; Miscellaneous Application No. 54 of 2025)
• Okalang & Another v Aurugai & Another (Miscellaneous Application 278 of 2024)
• Ainomugisha v Nkabahita (Miscellaneous Application 555 of 2023)
• Gasasira v Bataringaya (Civil Application 68 of 2025)
• Sentongo v I and M Bank Limited (formerly Orient Bank Uganda Limited) (Civil Application 1069 of 2023)

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