Sentongo v I and M Bank Limited (formerly ) Orient bank (u) Limited (Civil Application 114 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

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal granted an interim order of stay of execution and an interim injunction restraining sale of the mortgaged property by public auction pending determination of the substantive application for stay. The Court held that the applicant satisfied the three conditions: a competent notice of appeal, a pending substantive application, and a serious threat of execution evidenced by extraction of a decree and advertisement of the property for auction. The Court held that Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012, requiring a 30% security deposit, applies only where a mortgagor seeks adjournment of a sale, not to an interim injunction restraining sale pending a substantive application. The application was not res judicata as both courts have concurrent jurisdiction.

Outcome

Interim stay of execution and interim injunction granted pending the hearing of the substantive application for stay of execution

Facts

The applicant sought a financial facility from the respondent bank to complete construction of a commercial property, Segawa Market, on land at Kibuga Block 12 Plots 250, 251 and 252, Kisenyi. In February 2016 the parties executed a facility letter for UGX 5,000,000,000. The applicant alleged the bank breached the facility by failing to disburse the agreed sums. The bank contended the applicant defaulted on loan repayments. The applicant sued in HCCS No. 464 of 2018 and the bank counter-sued in HCCS No. 036 of 2019. The consolidated suits were decided on 23 December 2022 in the bank's favour, ordering the applicant to pay UGX 10,384,308,959 plus UGX 150,000,000 general damages. The applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 001 of 2023 and a substantive application for stay of execution (Civil Application No. 113 of 2023). The bank extracted a decree and advertised the mortgaged property for sale by public auction on 14 April 2023, prompting this interim application.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of stay of execution pending determination of the substantive application.
2. Whether an interim injunction should issue to restrain the respondent from selling the mortgaged property by public auction pending the substantive application.
3. Whether Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 (requiring a 30% security deposit) applies to an application for an interim injunction restraining a sale.
4. Whether the application was res judicata having allegedly been heard in the High Court.

Orders

• An interim stay of execution is granted, staying enforcement and execution of the Judgment, Decree and Orders of the High Court in Civil Suits HCCS No. 464/2018 and HCCS No. 036/2019 until hearing and determination of the substantive application for stay of execution.
• An interim order for an injunction restraining the Respondent from selling Block 12 Plots 250, 251 and 252 Mengo Kisenyi Kampala until final disposal of the substantive application for stay of execution.
• Costs of this application shall abide the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• 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 42(1)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 Rule 76
• Mortgage Regulations 2012 Regulation 13(1)

Cases cited (10)

• Zubede Mohamed and Sadru Mohamed v Leah Kakusa and Another (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
• Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tadhin Hussien and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2008)
• Dr. Ahmed Muhammed Kisuule v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2010)
• C v C SCCA No. 02 of 2003 (unreported)
• Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
• China Henan International Cooperation Group Co. Ltd v Justus Kyabahwa (Civil Application No. 30 of 2021)
• Hon. Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
• Yakobo Senkungu and Others v Cerencio Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2013)
• Wood More Energy Consultancy Ltd & 2 Others vs Cooperative Trust Bank (U) Ltd (CT Bank)
• Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Uganda Revenue Authority v Nyanga Oburofa Enterprises Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 2498 of 2025) applied
• The Emin Pasha Limited and Others v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 0049 of 2025) followed

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