Uganda Case Law

Nalea General Merchants Ltd v Equity Bank Of Uganda and 2 Ors

Nalea General Merchants Ltd v Equity Bank Of Uganda and 2 Ors (Civil Suit No.0246 of 2012) [2023] UGHCCD 368 (14 December 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Civil Suit No.0246 of 2012

Judge

Douglas Karekona Singiza, J

High Court invalidated a bank’s chattels mortgage over company buses, held the recall and receivership unlawful, and ordered damages and return of the buses.

• Chattels Mortgage
• Invalid Security Interest
• Foreclosure Procedure
• Company Directors Authority
• Remedies For Unlawful Disposal
• Lien And Equitable Charge

Muniru v Equity Bank (U) Limited & Another

Muniru v Equity Bank (U) Limited & Another (Civil Suit 289 of 2017) [2023] UGCommC 234 (22 February 2023)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 289 of 2017

Judge

Anna B. Mugenyi, J

The High Court held that a bus used as loan security was lawfully impounded after default. The plaintiff’s title was cancelled, and the bank could sell the bus.

• Chattels Mortgage
• Security Interest Perfection
• Fraudulent Transfer
• Bonafide Purchaser
• Remedies For Default
• Vehicle Title Disputes

Singh v Kenyan Insurance Limited (Privy Council Appeal No. 12 of 1953)

Singh v Kenyan Insurance Limited (Privy Council Appeal No. 12 of 1953) [1955] EACA 57 (1 January 1955)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Privy Council Appeal No. 12 of 1953

Judges

Lord Keith, Lord Porter

The Privy Council held that a purchaser at a court bailiff’s sale acquired good title to an omnibus despite a registered chattels mortgage and prior notice of it.

• Execution Of Judgments
• Chattels Mortgage
• Title Transfer
• Auction Sales
• Notice Requirements
• Execution-sales

Nairobi Flour Mills v Ram

Nairobi Flour Mills v Ram (Civil Suit No. 540 of 1954) [1955] EACA 11 (1 January 1955)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Suit No. 540 of 1954

Judge

Cram J

The court held that the responsibility for identifying and disclosing any chattels mortgage affecting property sought to be attached and sold in execution lies with the attaching creditor and his advocate, not with the court officer. The use of the phrase 'subject to bill of sale, if any' in the application was objectionable because it could be interpreted as an attempt to transfer the risk and burden of investigation to the court officer, which is improper. The court emphasized that the attaching creditor must act bona fide and disclose any knowledge or doubt regarding third-party interests.…

Source excerpt

• Execution Of Decrees
• Attachment Of Property
• Court Officer Duties
• Chattels Mortgage
• Burden Of Risk

Maxwell v Kalyanji and Others

Maxwell v Kalyanji and Others (Civil Case No. 762 of 1951) [1952] EACA 278 (1 January 1952)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Case No. 762 of 1951

Judge

Bourke J

A chattels mortgagee challenged execution against mortgaged goods, but the court held the originating summons under Order 21 was not the proper procedure.

• Chattels Mortgage
• Attachment Proceedings
• Execution Of Judgment
• Rights Of Third Parties
• Originating Summons
• Court Broker Authority

John K. Gilliat and Company Limited v Land and Agricultural Bank of Kenya

John K. Gilliat and Company Limited v Land and Agricultural Bank of Kenya (Civil Case No. 145 of 1938) [1938] EACA 187 (1 January 1938)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Civil Case No. 145 of 1938

Judge

Sheridan CJ

The court held that the bank’s rights as first mortgagee were not displaced by the chattels mortgage, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to crop proceeds.

• Mortgagee Rights
• Chattels Mortgage
• Power Of Sale
• Fiduciary Duties
• Notice Of Sale
• Auction Sale

Ram and Son v Singh and Another (C.A. 17/1934.)

Ram and Son v Singh and Another (C.A. 17/1934.) [1935] EACA 42 (1 January 1935)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

C.A. 17/1934.

Judges

Abrahamas, C.J. (Tanganyika), Law, C.J (Zanzibar), Sheridan, P

The appellants, by their own pleading, are general moneylenders and do not fall within the exception of section 2(1)(b) of the Moneylenders Ordinance, 1932. The transaction was a loan secured by a chattels mortgage, and the appellants failed to demonstrate that their business was bona fide confined to lending money on mortgages. Section 10 of the Ordinance requires a separate note or memorandum in writing, signed by the borrower, containing all terms of the contract including the date of the loan. The only document produced was the chattels mortgage, which did not specify the date the loan wa…

Source excerpt

• Moneylending Contracts
• Chattels Mortgage
• Statutory Compliance
• Loan Enforceability