Uganda Case Law

Tropical Bank Limited v Bwenge Davis (Originating Summons No. 20 of 2024)

Tropical Bank Limited v Bwenge Davis (Originating Summons No. 20 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 203 (27 June 2025)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Originating Summons No. 20 of 2024

Judge

Susan Odongo, J

The court found that the dispute was properly commenced by originating summons as the facts were not substantially in dispute and the main issue was the construction of the credit facility agreement. The defendant admitted indebtedness and default, and the penalty interest was contractually agreed upon. The plaintiff proved the existence of the contract, breach by the defendant, and the outstanding sum. The vehicle was validly pledged as collateral, and the plaintiff is entitled to foreclose and sell it to recover the debt. Costs are awarded to the plaintiff due to the defendant's breach and…

Source excerpt

• Credit Facility Agreement
• Loan Default
• Chattel Mortgage
• Foreclosure Procedure
• Contractual Penalty Interest

Nantenge v Tropical Bank Limited

Nantenge v Tropical Bank Limited (Civil Suit 483 of 2017) [2025] UGCommC 31 (18 February 2025)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit 483 of 2017

Judge

Ocaya, J

The High Court partly upheld a land mortgage dispute, finding valid spousal consent for some plots, but no valid mortgage for one plot and trespass by the bank.

• Mortgage Enforcement
• Spousal Consent
• Foreclosure Procedure
• Trespass To Land
• Contract Variation
• Damages

PostBank Uganda Ltd v Aliganyira and Another

PostBank Uganda Ltd v Aliganyira and Another (Miscellaneous Cause 1 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 712 (12 July 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause 1 of 2024

Judge

Mugabo, J

The High Court ordered removal of caveats lodged against two parcels of land, finding the caveator had not shown cause or pursued any substantive claim.

• Caveat Removal
• Mortgage Enforcement
• Spousal Consent
• Foreclosure Procedure
• Caveat-removal
• Mortgage-enforcement

Alp Investments Limited v Bank of India (U) Limited (Originating Summons 1 of 2024)

Alp Investments Limited v Bank of India (U) Limited (Originating Summons 1 of 2024) [2024] UGCommC 74 (22 January 2024)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Originating Summons 1 of 2024

Judge

Mutesi, J

The court found that the defendant's entry into possession of the mortgaged property without proper issuance and service of a notice of entry was irregular and illegal. The foreclosure and sale of the property were also irregular and illegal due to the absence of a mandatory notice to sell and a valuation report within six months prior to sale, as required by the Mortgage Act and Regulations. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the conditional injunction excused compliance with statutory procedures. The sale was set aside, and the applicant was entitled to restoration of possess…

Source excerpt

• Mortgage Enforcement
• Foreclosure Procedure
• Notice To Sell
• Valuation Requirements
• Injunctive Relief
• Damages And Costs

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

Mityana Diocese Development Trust & Another v Namugenyi (Originating Summons 13 of 2023)

Mityana Diocese Development Trust & Another v Namugenyi (Originating Summons 13 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 153 (11 December 2023)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Originating Summons 13 of 2023

Judge

Tumusiime Rubagumya, J

The court found that the Plaintiffs had fulfilled all statutory requirements for enforcement of the mortgage, including proper service of notices and lawful sale and transfer of the property. The Defendant defaulted on her loan obligations, failed to respond to notices, and did not contest the sale or the transfer of title. The 1st Plaintiff is now the registered proprietor of the suit land, and the Defendant's continued occupation is unlawful. The court applied the relevant provisions of the Mortgage Act, Civil Procedure Rules, and Registration of Titles Act, confirming that the purchaser's…

Source excerpt

• Mortgage Enforcement
• Vacant Possession
• Foreclosure Procedure
• Transfer Of Title
• Costs Award
• Default On Loan

Babigumira and Another v Global Trust Bank (In Liquidation) and 2 Others

Babigumira and Another v Global Trust Bank (In Liquidation) and 2 Others (Civil Appeal 14 of 2020) [2023] UGSC 37 (24 October 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 14 of 2020

Judge

Owiny-Dollo, CJ, Mwondha, JSC, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JSC, Tuhaise, JSC, Mike Chibita, JSC

The Supreme Court upheld the sale of mortgaged land after loan default, finding the mortgage deed valid, notice substantially served, and no unfair hearing.

• Mortgage Enforcement
• Right Of Redemption
• Loan Default
• Foreclosure Procedure
• Notice Of Default
• Execution Of Mortgage Deeds

DFCU v Uganda Signs Limited &2 Others (Originating Summons 17 of 2018)

DFCU v Uganda Signs Limited &2 Others (Originating Summons 17 of 2018) [2022] UGCommC 176 (20 December 2022)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Originating Summons 17 of 2018

Judge

Anna B. Mugenyi, J

The court found that the applicant had established the existence of an equitable mortgage by deposit of the certificate of title and registration of a caveat, following the nullification of the legal mortgage. The applicant demonstrated that the respondents remained indebted in the sum of Ugx 63,706,433/= as at 12/11/2008, and that the statutory procedure for foreclosure under section 8 of the Mortgage Act was applicable. The court ordered the 1st respondent to pay the outstanding amount within two months, failing which the applicant may seek foreclosure. The absence of a substantive defence…

Source excerpt

• Equitable Mortgage
• Foreclosure Procedure
• Security Interest Enforcement
• Deposit Of Title
• Caveat Registration

Nakato v Housing Finance Bank Limited and Another

Nakato v Housing Finance Bank Limited and Another (Civil Appeal 687 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 130 (5 April 2022)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 687 of 2021

Judge

Stephen Mubiru, J

The Registrar's imposition of the 30% deposit condition was a proper exercise of discretion under Regulation 13 of The Mortgage Regulations, 2012. The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of undue hardship or inability to pay, relying instead on general assertions of illiteracy, family size, and lack of alternative accommodation. The court found no specific error in law or fact, nor any manifest injustice in the Registrar's decision. The statutory requirements for mortgages override traditional considerations for temporary injunctions, and the discretion to waive the deposit must b…

Source excerpt

• Mortgage Regulation
• Temporary Injunction
• Matrimonial Home
• Foreclosure Procedure
• Judicial Discretion

Lubega Wasswa and Another v Housing Finance Company (U) Limited (Now known as Housing Finance Bank Limited) (

Lubega Wasswa and Another v Housing Finance Company (U) Limited (Now known as Housing Finance Bank Limited) ( (Civil Suit No. 152 of 2019) [2021] UGCommC 34 (10 August 2021)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Suit No. 152 of 2019

Judge

Abinyo, J

The court found that the 1st Plaintiff defaulted on his mortgage obligations, was served with statutory notices, and failed to redeem the property despite ample opportunity and reminders. The Defendant, as mortgagee, exercised its contractual and statutory right to sell the property by private treaty, with the 1st Plaintiff's prior written consent. The sale was properly advertised, and the 2nd Plaintiff lawfully purchased the property, paid the full purchase price, and was entitled to vacant possession. The court held that the acceptance of partial payment by the Defendant did not constitute…

Source excerpt

• Mortgage Enforcement
• Right Of Redemption
• Sale By Private Treaty
• Foreclosure Procedure
• Remedies For Breach
• Damages And Interest