Share
MFK Corporation Ltd v Diamond Trust Bank Ltd (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 86 (23 July 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] UGCommC 86
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Gaswaga, J
- Case number
- H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Commercial Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Gaswaga, J
- Case number
- H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the application was brought under Rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules, which allows for urgent civil matters to be heard during court vacation. The applicant demonstrated that the respondent's intended disposal of the suit properties during lockdown and court vacation would result in irreparable loss and substantial damage. The urgency was established by the imminent sale and the respondent's refusal to comply with previous court orders. The interests of justice required the issuance of a certificate of urgency to prevent abuse of court process and ensure the applicant's rights were protected. Accordingly, the court granted the certificate of urgency and directed the Registrar to fix the applications for interim order and temporary injunction for hearing.
Court disposition
certificate of urgency granted
Orders
- A certificate of urgency is granted pursuant to Rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules SI 13-20.
- The Registrar is directed to fix M. A No. 968 of 2021 (interim order) and M. A No. 967 of 2021 (temporary injunction) for hearing.
- Applicants to notify and serve the relevant court process on the respondents.
- Costs of this application are to be provided for.
02
Material facts
Parties
MFK Corporation Ltd
ApplicantDiamond Trust Bank (U) Ltd
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Certificate of Urgency
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for a certificate of urgency meets the threshold under Rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules.
- 02
Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable loss if the application is not heard during court vacation.
- 03
Whether the interests of justice require the grant of a certificate of urgency to prevent disposal of suit properties.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the respondent bank is attempting to liquidate or sell properties that are the subject of Civil Suit No. 235 of 2019. The applicant contended that these actions constitute an abuse of court process and that urgent intervention is necessary to prevent substantial loss and irreparable damage. Due to the nationwide lockdown and court vacation, the applicant cannot obtain injunctive relief expeditiously. The respondent has refused to comply with previous court orders to render an account of the properties, and the sale is imminent. The applicant requested that the application for interim order be fixed for hearing and directions be made for submissions.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 4, Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules SI 13-20
Civil matters of an urgent nature may be heard during court vacation if the presiding judge deems them urgent.
- 02
Section 33 Judicature Act; Section 98 Civil Procedure Act
Court may grant a certificate of urgency to prevent irreparable loss and ensure justice is served.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the application was brought under Rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules, which allows for urgent civil matters to be heard during court vacation. The applicant demonstrated that the respondent's intended disposal of the suit properties during lockdown and court vacation would result in irreparable loss and substantial damage. The urgency was established by the imminent sale and the respondent's refusal to comply with previous court orders. The interests of justice required the issuance of a certificate of urgency to prevent abuse of court process and ensure the applicant's rights were protected. Accordingly, the court granted the certificate of urgency and directed the Registrar to fix the applications for interim order and temporary injunction for hearing.
Obiter and limits
- Time is of the essence in matters where property disposal is imminent and the applicant stands to suffer irreparable loss.
- The court must be vigilant to prevent parties from taking advantage of procedural delays caused by lockdowns or court vacations.
Court disposition
certificate of urgency granted
- A certificate of urgency is granted pursuant to Rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules SI 13-20.
- The Registrar is directed to fix M. A No. 968 of 2021 (interim order) and M. A No. 967 of 2021 (temporary injunction) for hearing.
- Applicants to notify and serve the relevant court process on the respondents.
- Costs of this application are to be provided for.
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 COURT]
M. A No. 096 of 2021
(Arising from M. A No. 968 of 2021, M. A No. 967 of 2021
& Civil Suit No.235 of 2019)
MFK CORPORATION LTD :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT
VERSUS
DIAMOND TRUST BANK (U) LTD::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT
BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE DUNCAN GASWAGA
RULING
- [1] This is an exparte application for a 'Certificate of Urgency' brought by the applicant under Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Section 98 CPA, Order 52 rules 1,2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 and Rule 4 SI No. 13-20 (Judicature Court Vacation Rules) to hear an application for interim order M. A No. 968 of 2021 and an application for a temporary injunction M. A No. 967 of 2021. The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant's director, Abbey Kyeyune Mbabaali which expounds on the grounds relied on and are briefly as follows; - *1. That the applicant filed M. A No. 968 of 2021 and M. A No.967 of 2021 all arising from Civil Suit No.235 of 2019 seeking for orders against the respondent bank*

*to stop the liquidation or sale of properties that are a subject in Civil Suit No. 235 of 2019.*
- *2. That the actions of the respondent are an abuse of court process and as such a certificate of urgency is required to be issued in orderforM. A No. 968 of2021 to be heard.* - *3. That if the application is not heard during court vacation, the applicant will suffer substantial loss and irreparable damage as a result of the sale of the advertised properties.* - *4. That it is in the interest ofjustice that court grants the relevant orders to stop the respondent and or her agents from selling the suit property.* - It was submitted for the applicant that the targeted actions which are sought to be injuncted are trespass on the specified properties, eviction of the owners' tenants therefrom and sale/ disposal of the suit land slated for 17/08/2021. That however due to the nationwide lockdown and court vacation, it wouldn't be possible to get the injunctive relief as fast as possible. Also that the respondent had earlier refused to heed the orders of this court by refusal to render an account of the same properties for which it has already issued notice of disposal. That this application meets the test of urgency and as such the same ought to be granted. Counsel prayed that the application for interim order be fixed and directions be made for submission on the same.
2
[3] According to rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation ) Rules SI 13-20,
*"In vacation the court shall deal with criminal business but shall not sit for the discharge of civil business other than such civil business as shall, in the opinion of the presidingjudge, be of an urgent nature."*
- [4] After diligently perusing the pleadings on record and also Counsel's submissions, <sup>I</sup> find that the application carries merit. It should be noted that the application is brought under Rule 4(supra) which specifically caters for urgent matters that need to be handled during court vacation. If the application is not granted, the applicant stands to suffer irreparable loss at the hands of the respondent who seeks to take advantage of the lockdown and court vacation to pull through with the disposal of the properties. Indeed it is apparent that time is of the essence. - [5] Accordingly, the interests of justice dictate that a certificate of urgency as sought by the applicant be and is hereby granted pursuant to rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules S113- 20. - [6] In the circumstances therefore, the Registrar of this court is hereby directed to fix the application for interim order M. A No. 968 of 2021 and the application for a temporary injunction M. A No. 967 of 2021 for hearing and also ensure that the applicants notify and serve the relevant Court process on the respondents. - [7] Costs of this application are to be provided for.

<sup>I</sup> so order.
Dated, signed and delivered this 23rd day of July 2021
w Duncan Qaswaga
JUDGE
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.