Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited v Kesacon Services Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application 724 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 court held that a mortgagee-vendor retains locus standi to seek vacant possession after sale because it must deliver quiet possession to the purchaser. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant vacant possession and eviction orders, finding that the pendency of an appeal without a stay of execution and other civil suits did not bar enforcement of a money judgment through sale of security. The caveat was vacated where the caveator failed to dispute evidence that the estate claiming interest had confirmed it had no interest in the property.

Outcome

Application granted. 1st Respondent ordered to give vacant possession within 60 days, failing which eviction order to issue. Caveat vacated. Costs awarded to Applicant.

Facts

Stanbic Bank held a mortgage over Kibuga Block 38 Plot 537 as security for a loan to Kesacon Services Limited. Following judgment in HCCS 66/2012 directing Kesacon to pay UGX 476,381,200 to the Bank, the parties sold the property to David Kageruka for UGX 560,000,000. The Bank received UGX 460,000,000 and Kesacon UGX 100,000,000. When the Bank sought vacant possession to deliver to the purchaser, Kesacon declined and Hadidu Namubiru lodged a caveat claiming an interest as part of the estate of the late Musa Ssebaduka. Kesacon contended that the sale was unauthorised, executed by only one director without proper authority, and that it had filed an appeal and two civil suits challenging the sale.

Issues

1. Whether the Applicant has locus standi to bring the application after selling the property to a third party.
2. Whether the court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to grant vacant possession and eviction orders.
3. Whether the pendency of an appeal and other civil suits should prevent the grant of the orders sought.
4. Whether the caveat lodged by the 2nd Respondent should be vacated.

Orders

• The 1st Respondent to give vacant possession of property comprised in Kibuga Block 38 Plot 537 at Wandegeya within sixty (60) days from the date of this ruling.
• In the event that the 1st Respondent declines to voluntarily give vacant possession, an order is issued for eviction of the 1st Respondent and all its tenants occupying the suit property.
• Before evicting the tenants of the 1st Respondent, the Applicant shall serve on all tenants a thirty day notice of eviction and no eviction shall be conducted except after the expiry of thirty days from the date of the notice.
• The caveat under instrument number KCCA-00089489 lodged by the 2nd Respondent on the suit property on 10th March 2022 is vacated.
• The Applicant is awarded costs of this application. Each Respondent will bear half of the Applicants' costs for this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (8)

• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Code Act s.82
• Civil Procedure Code Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
• Companies Act s.50(2)
• Companies Act s.53
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.50(2)

Cases cited (20)

• Sharif Omar v Hajji Haruna Mulangwa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1995)
• King's College Budo Staff Savings Scheme Limited v Zaverio Samula & Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 26 of 2020)
• Dima Dominic Poro v Inyani Godfrey & Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2016)
• Cwezi Properties v UDB (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1315 of 2022)
• Mariam Naigaga v Orient Bank (High Court Civil Suit No. 464 of 2013)
• Tullow Uganda Limited & Another v Jackson Wabyona & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 443 of 2017)
• Green Meadow Limited v Patrice Namisono (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1368 of 2022)
• Kagumaho Musana v Rama and 3 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 933 of 2019)
• CTM Uganda Limited v Almuss Properties (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 806 of 2015)
• Monitor Publications v KCCA (High Court Civil Suit No. 460 of 2015)
• NIS Protection (U) Limited v Nkumba University (High Court Civil Suit No. 604 of 2004)
• UMEME Limited v Jane Nankabirwa (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 154 of 2021)
• Luwa Luwa Investment v URA (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1336 of 2022)
• China Henan International Cooperation Group Company Limited v Justus Kyabahwa (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2021)
• Femisa International Limited & Another v Equity Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 357 of 2022)
• Fred Byamukama & Another v Micheal Katungye (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 772 of 2022)
• Bank of Rajasthan Limited v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Limited CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8972-8973 OF 2014
• Indian Bank vs Abs Marine Products Pvt. Ltd Appeal 10074-10075 of 2003
• Energo Projekt v Brig. Kasirye Gwanga (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 558 of 2009)
• Royal British Bank Vs Turquand

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Kesacon Services Limited v Stanbic Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application 305 of 2024)

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