Wakilii

The Emin Pasha Limited and Others v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 0049 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 245 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from the Registrar's ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 1469 of 2025 arising from Civil Suit No. 0796 of 2025
Decision
Appeal dismissed in substantial part; interim injunction remains in force for additional 60 days conditional on payment of 30% security deposit by 10th October 2025

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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 Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 requires that any court order stopping or adjourning the sale of mortgaged property must be conditioned on payment of 30% of the forced sale value or outstanding amount. The requirement applies to interim injunctions in trial courts, not only to stay of execution orders in appellate courts. The court may calculate the 30% deposit using the forced sale value determined at execution of the mortgage rather than requiring a fresh valuation under Regulation 11(2). The Registrar correctly conditioned the interim injunction on payment of USD 2,730,000 within 30 days, though the time was extended by 60 days on appeal to allow the appellants to source funds from a government debt owed to the second appellant.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed in substantial part; interim injunction remains in force for additional 60 days conditional on payment of 30% security deposit by 10th October 2025

Facts

The appellants obtained three credit facilities from the first respondent bank, secured by mortgages over four properties and personal guarantees. The appellants defaulted on repayment obligations. The first appellant authorised consolidation of two facilities in May 2023, but default continued. In April 2025, the bank published a newspaper advertisement commencing foreclosure proceedings. The appellants filed a civil suit challenging the consolidation, disputed loan amounts, and threatened sale, together with applications for temporary and interim injunctions. The Registrar granted an interim injunction stopping the sale on condition that the appellants deposit USD 2,730,000 (30% of forced sale value) within 30 days. The appellants appealed, arguing the condition was improper because it was based on valuation reports from January 2020, more than five years before the scheduled sale date, and that the Mortgage Regulations require fresh valuation within six months of sale.

Issues

  1. Whether the Learned Registrar erred in law and fact when she conditioned the impugned interim injunction on prior deposit of a security deposit that was tabulated on the basis of the valuation reports dated 14th January 2020.

Orders

  • Appeal fails in substantial part.
  • The conditional interim injunction order issued by the Learned Registrar in Miscellaneous Application No. 1469 of 2025 shall remain in force for an additional 60 days until 10th October 2025 to enable the Appellants source and pay the 30% security deposit prescribed by the Learned Registrar in order to sustain the validity of the order.
  • Costs of the appeal and those of Miscellaneous Application No. 1469 of 2025 shall abide by the outcome of Civil Suit No. 0796 of 2025.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Mortgage Foreclosure — Interim Injunctions — Application of Regulation 13 of Mortgage Regulations 2012
Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 applies to any court order that has the effect of stopping or adjourning the sale of mortgaged property, regardless of whether the order is styled as an interim injunction, temporary injunction, or stay of execution, and regardless of whether the application is made in a trial court or appellate court.
Civil Procedure — Mortgage Foreclosure — Security Deposit Requirement — Mandatory Nature
Under Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations 2012, the word 'may' affords the court discretion only in whether to adjourn the sale, but there is no discretion regarding whether to condition the adjournment on payment of the security deposit. Once the court decides to stop or adjourn a sale, the condition to deposit 30% security must attach to that stoppage or adjournment.
Banking & Finance — Mortgage Regulations — Valuation Requirements — Distinction Between Regulation 11(2) and Regulation 13
Regulation 11(2) of the Mortgage Regulations, which requires valuation of mortgaged property within six months before sale, is specific to the value at the time of sale by the mortgagee and does not apply to computation of the 30% security deposit under Regulation 13. For purposes of Regulation 13, the forced sale value determined at execution of the mortgage suffices, as it is a pre-dispute value agreed upon by the parties.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Introduction of New Grounds on Appeal
A party cannot introduce a new issue or matter on appeal if that issue or matter was not argued at trial, except with leave of the appellate court. One cannot blame a lower court for having erred on a matter which did not even arise in the case before it.
Banking & Finance — Mortgage Foreclosure — Disputed Outstanding Amount — Effect on Security Deposit Calculation
A dispute over the outstanding loan amount does not disqualify that amount as a basis for calculating the 30% security deposit under Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations. The court should take the amount claimed by the mortgagee at the time the suit is filed as the putative outstanding amount for purposes of implementing Regulation 13.
Civil Procedure — Mortgage Foreclosure — Commencement of Foreclosure Process
The foreclosure process commences upon issuance and service of a notice of default or demand notice by the mortgagee to the mortgagor or other interested party. Once the foreclosure process has commenced, Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations is triggered for any application seeking orders that would stop or adjourn that process.
Civil Procedure — First Appellate Court — Duty to Review Evidence
A first appellate court has a duty to review the evidence and reconsider the materials before the trial court, making up its own mind while not disregarding the judgment appealed from but carefully weighing and considering it.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (12)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Betuco (U) Ltd and Another v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd and 3 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2017)
  • I&M Bank Uganda Ltd v Nadia Manji and Another (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 0018 of 2023)
  • Performance Furnishings (U) Ltd and Another v Diamond Trust Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 278 of 2020)
  • Medard Matsiko v Equity Bank Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 204 of 2022)
  • Woodmore Energy Consultancy Ltd and 3 Others v Guaranty Trust Bank (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 270 of 2015)
  • Haruna Sentongo v I&M Bank (U) Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 114 of 2023)
  • Haruna Sentongo v I&M Bank (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 0003 of 2023)
  • Morjaria Maheshwery Purshotam v Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0191 of 2022)
  • Alps Investments Ltd v Bank of India (U) Ltd (High Court Originating Summons No. 1 of 2024)
  • Kingston Enterprises Ltd and 3 Others v Standard Chartered Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0446 of 2021)
  • Alice Nabaasa Kahinda v David Nabaasa Nshekanabo and Another (High Court Civil Reference No. 0003 of 2024)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Emin Pasha Limited and Others v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 0049 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 245 (9 August 2025)
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.