Standard Chartered Bank (Uganda) Limited v Grand Hotel (Uganda) Limited (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1999)
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.
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
The Court of Appeal held that a court cannot decide a case on an unpleaded issue that was not left to it for decision by the parties. The trial judge wrongly denied the mortgagee bank foreclosure on the sole ground that a demand letter was unsigned, a matter never pleaded or raised at trial, causing a failure of justice. A dismissal (rather than a striking out) was proper because the matter was heard on its merits. Originating Summons under Order 34 rule 3A was the correct procedure for a mortgagee's foreclosure and sale claim. A decree is no longer an essential document in the record of appeal. The appeal was allowed and the cross-appeal dismissed.
Outcome
Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside and judgment entered for the appellant Bank; cross-appeal dismissed
Facts
In 1965 Grand Hotel (Uganda) Limited, registered proprietor of two leasehold properties in Kampala (Plot 4 Portal Avenue and Plot 6 Speke Road), deposited the certificates of title with Standard Chartered Bank as security for loan facilities payable in pounds sterling, executing a memorandum of deposit. In 1972 the company's shareholders and directors left Uganda during the "economic war", and the mortgaged properties were expropriated and vested in the Departed Asians Properties Custodian Board under the Assets of Departed Asians Decree 1973. In 1991 the company repossessed the properties under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 and demanded release of the title deeds, contending the mortgage had been extinguished under section 19 of the Limitation Act. The Bank contended acknowledgements of its debt during government custody preserved the mortgage, and demanded payment of the outstanding loans. When payment was refused, the Bank took out an Originating Summons for foreclosure and sale.
Issues
- Whether the trial judge erred in declining to grant foreclosure and sale on the ground that a demand letter (Annexture D) was unsigned, when that was not an issue pleaded or put before the court.
- Whether, having found an accrued enforceable right, the suit should have been struck out rather than dismissed.
- Whether the appeal was incompetent because no formal order or decree had been extracted.
- Whether Originating Summons was the correct procedure for the mortgagee's claim for foreclosure and sale.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Judgment of the High Court set aside.
- Judgment entered for the appellant Bank.
- Cross-appeal dismissed.
- Costs of the appeal and the court below awarded to the appellant Bank, plus the costs of the cross-appeal.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order XXXIV rr 3A and 7
- Mortgage Decree 1974 s.2
- Limitation Act Cap 70 s.19
- Assets of Departed Asians Decree 1973 (Decree No. 21 of 1973)
- Expropriated Properties Act 1982
- Rules of the Court of Appeal rule 81
- Rules of the Court of Appeal rule 101(b)
- Rules of the Court of Appeal rule 86
Cases cited (5)
- Captain Harry Gandy v Caspar Air Charter Ltd., 21 EACA 139
- Blay v Pollard and Morris [1930] 1 KB 682
- Fernandes v People Newspapers Ltd
- Odd Jobs v Mubia [1970] EA 476
- Kulsumbai and Another v Abdulhussein and Others [1957] EA 699
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.