Share
Enscon Ltd v Orient Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 442 of 2012) [2012] UGCommC 177 (2 August 2012)
- Citation
- [2012] UGCommC 177
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Application for Certificate of Urgency
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 442 of 2012
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Application for Certificate of Urgency
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 442 of 2012
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the pleadings disclosed some urgency due to the imminent threat of sale of the applicant's property by the respondent bank, arising from the recall of a loan agreement. Although the application did not specify the exact timing of the intended sale, the court accepted the applicant's assertion of imminent danger and the absence of other judicial proceedings affecting the matter. The court emphasized that it would not assess the merits of the interim injunction at this stage but would only determine whether the application should be heard urgently. Accordingly, the certificate of urgency was granted, allowing the applicant to argue its case for an interim order of injunction before the registrar during court vacation. The costs of the application were ordered to abide the outcome of the main application.
Court disposition
certificate of urgency granted
Orders
- Certificate of urgency is granted with respect to Miscellaneous Application No. 437 of 2012.
- The applicant's application for interim injunction shall be heard by the registrar during court vacation.
- The main application should be given a date in consultation with the presiding judge to whom the main suit has been assigned.
- Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main application.
02
Material facts
Parties
Enscon Limited
Applicant Counsel: Warren ByamukamaOrient Bank Limited
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Application for Certificate of Urgency
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for a certificate of urgency should be granted to allow hearing of interim injunction during court vacation.
- 02
Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient urgency to warrant deviation from normal court schedule.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that its property is in imminent danger of being sold by the respondent due to the recall of a loan agreement. It argues that unless the application for an injunction is heard urgently, it may suffer irreparable harm and be held liable for failure to comply with contractual obligations. The applicant asserts willingness to pay the loan and claims that the interest of justice requires urgent hearing.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not file a specific affidavit in reply to this application. However, the record indicates the respondent recalled the loan and is attempting to sell the applicant's property, which forms the basis of the applicant's claim of urgency.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 98 Civil Procedure Act; Rule 4 Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules
Court may grant a certificate of urgency for hearing applications during court vacation if sufficient urgency is demonstrated.
- 02
Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules; prior High Court determination
Registrar has jurisdiction to hear urgent applications during court vacation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the pleadings disclosed some urgency due to the imminent threat of sale of the applicant's property by the respondent bank, arising from the recall of a loan agreement. Although the application did not specify the exact timing of the intended sale, the court accepted the applicant's assertion of imminent danger and the absence of other judicial proceedings affecting the matter. The court emphasized that it would not assess the merits of the interim injunction at this stage but would only determine whether the application should be heard urgently. Accordingly, the certificate of urgency was granted, allowing the applicant to argue its case for an interim order of injunction before the registrar during court vacation. The costs of the application were ordered to abide the outcome of the main application.
Obiter and limits
- The court presupposes that there are no other judicial proceedings or orders touching on the same matter.
- The registrar has jurisdiction to hear applications during court vacation and may determine whether an application is of an urgent nature.
- The merits of the interim order will be determined by the registrar, not at this stage.
Court disposition
certificate of urgency granted
- Certificate of urgency is granted with respect to Miscellaneous Application No. 437 of 2012.
- The applicant's application for interim injunction shall be heard by the registrar during court vacation.
- The main application should be given a date in consultation with the presiding judge to whom the main suit has been assigned.
- Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main application.
Source and reliance status
Commercial Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Commercial Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 442 OF 2012
ARISING FROM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 438 OF 2012
ARISING FROM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 437 OF 2012
ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO 304 OF 2012
ENSCON LIMITED}........................................................................... APPLICANT
VERSUS
ORIENT BANK LIMITED}................................................................ RESPONDENT
BEFORE HON. JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER MADRAMA
RULING
The applicant filed this application under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules for issuance of a certificate of urgency in respect of Miscellaneous Application No. 437 and 438 of 2012 arising from Civil Suit No. 304 of 2012 and for costs of the application.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Warren Byamukama which briefly states that:
The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 304 of 2012 against the respondent for an injunction restraining the respondent from selling the applicants property comprised in block 77 plot 65 land at Lyantode, Rakai hereinafter referred to as the suit land. Since the applicant has filed a suit for an injunction stopping the respondent from selling the applicants property arising out of a loan agreement, the application is urgent. It is averred that if the applicant is not heard during court vacation, the Applicant might be held liable for failure to comply with their
*Notes of* Hon. Mr*. Justice* <sup>C</sup>hri*stopher Ma*dr*am*<sup>a</sup>
contractual obligations. The applicant further avers that it is in the interest of justice that Miscellaneous Application No. 437 and 438 of 2012 are heard urgently. The affidavit in support repeats the grounds mentioned in the notice of motion.
The applicant filed high court civil suit number 304 of 2012 for an injunction restraining the defendant and their servants and/or their agents from selling the plaintiffs property, general damages and costs of the suit. The Plaintiff acknowledges that it borrowed money from the Defendant and that it still owes money to the Defendant. In the suit it is alleged that the Defendant recalled the loan prematurely and in breach of contract.
The Applicant has additionally filed an application for a temporary injunction which is MA No. 437 of 2012 to restrain the respondent from attaching and selling the plaintiffs property comprised in the suit land pending the hearing of the main suit.
The applicant further filed Miscellaneous Application No. 438 of 2012 for an interim order of injunction pending the hearing of the main application for a temporary injunction.
The application does not show when the respondent intends to sell the Applicants property. It is only averred that the respondent has recalled the loan and is trying to sell the applicants property.
I will not comment on the merits of the application for an interim order. What I need to emphasise is that this court has already determined that the registrar has jurisdiction to hear applications during court vacation. However, much as she has power to determine whether the application is of an urgent nature, and to avoid making the proceedings protracted, I will consider whether this application is of an urgent nature.
The applicant asserts that its property is in imminent danger of being sold. That it is willing to pay the loan. The court cannot at this stage assess the merits of any matter and will only consider whether the application should be heard during court vacation.
*Notes of Hon. Mr. Justice Chri;/op4c: ?1tadrama*
The pleadings on the face of it disclose that there is some urgency in the Imminence of the sale. This is based on a supposed contractual right of the Respondent as a Bank to sell property. This court presupposes that there are no other judicial proceedings or orders touching on the same matter.
In the circumstances, I will not shut out the applicant from arguing his case for an interim order of injunction on the merits before the registrar. The certificate of urgency is granted with respect to Miscellaneous Application No. 437 of 2012. As to whether an interim order should be granted in the circumstances will be determined by the registrar on the merits of the Application. The applicant's application will be heard by the registrar. The main application should be given a date in consultation with the presiding judge to whom the main suit has been assigned. Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main application.
Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Wednesday, 01 August 2012
Ruling shall be delivered by the registrar on the 2 nd of August 2012
Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Wednesday, 01 August 2012
.,1
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.