Summit Projekt Limited v Standard Chartered Bank (u) Limited (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2023)

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.

Holding

The single Justice granted an interim order of injunction restraining the respondent bank from selling the applicant's mortgaged properties pending determination of the substantive application for temporary injunction. The court held that the 30% deposit requirement under Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2014 did not apply because there was no valuation report on record and liability was disputed, distinguishing the Ganafa case which concerned a main temporary injunction application. The applicant satisfied the three conditions for an interim order: a competent notice of appeal, a pending substantive application, and a real threat of alienation established by the advertisement for sale.

Outcome

Interim injunction granted maintaining the status quo pending determination of the substantive application

Facts

The applicant and the respondent bank executed credit facility agreements secured by the applicant's several properties. The applicant challenged its liability on grounds of breach of contract by the respondent and sued in High Court Civil Suit No. 392 of 2018 (Commercial Division) seeking release of the mortgaged properties. The applicant was unsuccessful and appealed. The respondent commenced foreclosure by advertising the mortgaged properties for sale, publishing the advertisement in the Daily Monitor of 19 December 2022, before determination of the substantive application and appeal. The respondent opposed the application, contending that the applicant had failed to deposit 30% of the forced sale value or outstanding loan as required by Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2014, asserting outstanding amounts of UGX 6,642,167,528 and USD 211,498.17. There was no valuation report of the properties on record.

Issues

1. Whether the requirement under Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2014 to deposit 30% of the forced sale value or outstanding amount applies to an application for an interim order of injunction.
2. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of injunction.

Orders

• An interim order of injunction is granted to maintain the status quo and prevent alienation of the described properties pending determination of Civil Application No. 12 of 2023.
• The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (9)

• 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 44
• Mortgage Regulations 2014 reg.13(1)
• Evidence Act s.55
• Evidence Act s.57
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28
• Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.44(c)

Cases cited (5)

• Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
• Ssekikubo v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
• Ganafa Peter Kisuwuzi v DFCU Bank Limited (Civil Application No. 64 of 2016)
• Woodmore Energy Consultancy Ltd v Guaranty Trust Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 270 of 2016)
• Fuelex (U) Ltd v URA (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2009)

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