Wakilii

Solomon Champlain Lui & Another v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited & Another (Civil Suit 63 of 2018)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 197 · 2021 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit arising from mortgage default, foreclosure, and sale of mortgaged properties
Decision
Sale of mortgaged properties upheld; plaintiffs to receive difference between forced sale value and actual sale price; plaintiffs remain liable for outstanding loan balance less amounts owed to them; first defendant entitled to evict plaintiffs from remaining property to recover balance

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that the mortgage deeds were validly executed despite the absence of the mortgagee's signature and seal on the second mortgage deed, as the proprietors delivered their titles to the bank as security. The court found the sale of the mortgaged properties was legal and the second defendant acquired good title under section 29 of the Mortgage Act 2009. However, the first defendant breached its duty of care by selling the properties below the forced sale value. The plaintiffs remain liable for the outstanding loan balance of USD 883,551.14 but are entitled to the difference between the forced sale value and the actual sale price.

Outcome

Sale of mortgaged properties upheld; plaintiffs to receive difference between forced sale value and actual sale price; plaintiffs remain liable for outstanding loan balance less amounts owed to them; first defendant entitled to evict plaintiffs from remaining property to recover balance

Facts

In February 2012 and June 2013, the plaintiffs obtained two USD loan facilities totaling USD 1,101,029 from Stanbic Bank (1st defendant) to purchase land in Kyadondo Block 257 at Munyonyo and construct apartments, secured by mortgages. The plaintiffs defaulted on repayments. Following multiple demand notices, the bank foreclosed the mortgages and sold the properties to the 2nd defendant for USD 240,000. The plaintiffs alleged the sale was fraudulent, that the properties were sold below market value without proper valuation, that they were not involved in the sale process, and that the mortgage deeds were invalid because the bank failed to sign and seal them. The bank counterclaimed for USD 883,551.14 being the outstanding debt.

Issues

  1. Whether the sale of plot 920 and 921 by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant was illegal, fraudulent and constituted a breach of duty to obtain the true market value.
  2. Whether the 1st defendant breached its duty not to sell the suit property at a value below the forced sale value.
  3. Whether the plaintiffs are jointly and or severally indebted to the 1st defendant to the claimed tune of $883,551.14 or at all.
  4. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The two mortgages issued to the plaintiffs were legally issued in compliance with the Mortgage laws of Uganda.
  • The sale of the suit properties to the 2nd Defendant, that is, Kyadondo Block 257 Plots 920 and 921 at Munyonyo is hereby declared legal and is upheld as the 2nd defendant did acquire good title to the suit properties.
  • The 1st defendant to pay to the plaintiffs the difference between the forced sale value as per the second valuation report of UGX 1,500,000,000 and the subsequent sale price of the suit properties amounting to UGX 878,400,000 which is an amount of UGX 621,600,000 within a period of One (1) month with any failure to do so attracting interest at the rate of 18% per annum till payment in full.
  • The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs remain liable to pay to the 1st defendant an amount of USD 883,551.14 interest inclusive unpaid on the two loan facilities due as of 24th May 2017 LESS what is repayable to them by the 1st defendant.
  • The 1st defendant granted the right to evict the plaintiffs from Kyadondo Block 257 Plot 944 Munyonyo and sell it to recover the due balance within one (1) month from the date of this judgment.
  • An order of cancelling any or all the encumbrances registered by any person prior to this judgment on Kyadondo Block 257 Plots 920 and 921 at Munyonyo and Kyadondo Block 257 Plot 944 Munyonyo.
  • No General Damages awarded to any of the parties.
  • The costs of this suit is awarded to the defendants in equal amounts as against the plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Mortgage Law — Validity of Mortgage Deeds — Execution Requirements — Effect of Missing Mortgagee Signature
A mortgage deed arising from contract is validly executed and binding where the proprietor of the title delivers it to a mortgagee as security for a loan, notwithstanding the mortgagee's failure to sign or seal the mortgage deed.
Mortgage Law — Power of Sale — Duty to Give Notice — Sufficiency of Demand Notice
Under section 19(1) of the Mortgage Act 2009, a demand notice is sufficient if it is in writing, indicates a default in payment, and constitutes an unequivocal and unconditional demand for all moneys due and owing. Service by post to the mortgagor's known postal address is valid service.
Mortgage Law — Power of Sale — Duty of Care — Sale Below Forced Sale Value
A mortgagee is under a duty of care to obtain a reasonable price when exercising the power of sale. Where a mortgagee sells mortgaged property below the forced sale value established by a valuation report, this constitutes negligence and breach of the duty of care owed to the mortgagor, entitling the mortgagor to the difference between the forced sale value and the sale price.
Mortgage Law — Sale by Mortgagee — Protection of Purchaser — Good Title
Under section 29 of the Mortgage Act 2009, a purchaser in a sale effected by a mortgagee acquires good title except in cases of fraud, misrepresentation or other dishonest conduct on the part of the mortgagee of which the purchaser has actual or constructive notice. A purchaser is not obliged to inquire whether there has been default by the mortgagor or whether notices required in connection with the exercise of the power of sale have been duly given.
Mortgage Law — Sale During Litigation — Effect of Caveat — Legal Encumbrance
A caveat lodged by a mortgagor who is in default under a mortgage deed is not a legal encumbrance. A mortgagee may lawfully sell mortgaged property during the subsistence of litigation where the mortgagee has duly issued notices of default and advertised the property for sale, and no court order restraining the sale is registered as an encumbrance on the certificate of title.
Loan Agreements — Multiple Facilities — Pooling of Accounts — Effect on Liability
Where a borrower receives two separate loan facilities from a lender and the lender pools the accounts without notice to the borrower, such pooling does not negate the fact that the loan facilities were granted and received and that the borrower defaulted on the combined amount. The borrower remains liable for the total outstanding debt.

Legislation cited (23)

Cases cited (17)

  • Interfreight Forwards Uganda Ltd v East African Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1993)
  • Diana Nansikombi Bbosa v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 406 of 2014)
  • Alice Okiror & Anor vs. Global Capital Save, 2004 Ltd.
  • General Parts (U) Limited v Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1999)
  • Sarah Bukenya v DFCU Bank Limited and Another (Civil Suit No. 267 of 2015)
  • Epaneti Mubiru v Uganda Credit and Savings Bank (High Court Civil Suit No. 567 of 1965)
  • Co-operative Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) v Shell Kasese Services Ltd, John Byakwaga and Collins Byakwaga (High Court Civil Suit No. 140 of 2005)
  • Cuckmere Brick Co. Ltd and Another Vs. Mutual Finance Ltd (1971) 2 ALLER 643
  • Kapeeka Coffee Works Ltd & Another v NPART (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Mulindwa Birimumaso v Government Central Purchasing Corporation (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2002)
  • Auto Garage vs. Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2006)
  • Nanteza Nabeta v Konde (Civil Suit No. 391 of 2010)
  • Andrew Babigumira and Another v Global Trust Bank and 3 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 344 of 2013)
  • Sendagire Stephen and Nanyombi Gladys v DFCU Limited, Kabiito Karamagi and Kirumira Godfrey Kalule (High Court Civil Suit No. 26 of 2008)
  • Lloyds Bank Ltd vs. Bundy [1974] 3 ER 737
  • Takiya Kashwahiri & Another v Kajungu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Solomon Champlain Lui & Another v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited & Another (Civil Suit 63 of 2018) [2021] UGCommC 197 (16 April 2021)
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.