Uganda Commercial Bank v General Parts (U) Limited (Civil Suit 386 of 1993)

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 High Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff bank from disposing of the defendant's mortgaged properties pending determination of the main suit. The court found that the defendant established a prima facie case by raising triable issues regarding alleged breach of a renegotiated loan agreement, would suffer irreparable damage from the sale of properties on which an industrial project had commenced, and that the balance of inconvenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted restraining sale of defendant's properties pending determination of the main suit

Facts

Uganda Commercial Bank sued General Parts (U) Ltd to recover sums allegedly owed under a loan agreement secured by mortgage. The defendant applied to restrain the bank from selling the mortgaged properties pending trial. The defendant claimed the bank breached the loan agreement by delaying processing of Letters of Credit, causing merchandise to arrive late and necessitating additional overdraft and tax clearance facilities. The parties subsequently renegotiated the loan arrangements. The defendant disputed the sums claimed by the bank and alleged unauthorized transfer of funds to a third party, General Industries (U) Ltd. The bank advertised nine properties for sale by auction on 15 July 1993. The defendant claimed that an industrial project had commenced on some of the plots threatened with sale, and that funding of UGX 110 million from Uganda Development Bank had been paid as appraisal fees. The defendant contended that if the properties were sold, the project and expansion plans on adjacent plots would be irreparably lost.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success in the main suit.
2. Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable injury if the temporary injunction is not granted.
3. Whether the balance of inconvenience favours granting the temporary injunction.

Orders

• Application for temporary injunction granted.
• The respondent/plaintiff (Uganda Commercial Bank) is ordered not to dispose of the applicant/defendant's property until determination of the main suit.
• Status quo to be maintained.
• Costs of this application to follow the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (2)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 37 rule 1(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 37 rule 9

Cases cited (4)

• Giella v Cassaman Brown & Co Ltd (1972 LA 35)
• Noor Mohamed Jannohammed v Kassamali Virji Madhani (20 EACA 24)
• Kyimba-Kaggwa v Katende (1985 HCB 49)
• Bikwe Estates Coffee Works Ltd and 2 others v Lutabi (1982 328)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

• Semakula v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 432 of 2009)
• Semakula Haruna v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (HCT-00-CC-CS 432 of 2009)
• Semakula v Stanbic Bank Ugand Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 642 of 2011)
• General Parts (U) Ltd and Ors v Non-Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Civil Appeal 9 of 2005)

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