Uganda Case Law

Abisha Steel Industries Limited (In recievership) and 2 Others v Exim Bank (U) Limited and Another (HCCS 5 of 2017)

Abisha Steel Industries Limited (In recievership) and 2 Others v Exim Bank (U) Limited and Another (HCCS 5 of 2017) [2023] UGHC 299 (27 February 2023)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCCS 5 of 2017

Judge

Basaza, J

The court found that the Bank did not breach the facility contracts, as the deductions and recovery actions taken were consistent with the terms of the loan agreements and statutory requirements. The payment of USD 170,000 by Abisha rectified the initial default, but subsequent defaults occurred, and the Bank was entitled to proceed with recovery steps, including appointment of a Receiver and sale of mortgaged assets. The appointment of the Receiver was lawful under both the debenture and the Mortgage Act, with the court taking a liberal approach to documentary omissions by the Bank. The Plai…

Source excerpt

• Credit Facility Enforcement
• Receivership Appointment
• Mortgage Default Notices
• Debenture Registration
• Contractual Breach
• Accountability Of Receiver

Threeways Shipping Services (Group) Ltd v Kabiito & Anor

Threeways Shipping Services (Group) Ltd v Kabiito & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 121 of 2018) [2018] UGCommC 24 (20 June 2018)

Court

Commercial Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 121 of 2018

The High Court rejected a review application challenging a receiver’s appointment over alleged conflict of interest, finding no error apparent on the face of the record.

• Receivership Appointment
• Conflict Of Interest
• Review Of Court Orders
• Fiduciary Duties Of Receiver
• Receivership
• Conflict-of-interest

Grindlays Bank Uganda Limited v Uganda Bottlers Limited

Grindlays Bank Uganda Limited v Uganda Bottlers Limited (Civil Appeal 29 of 1995) [1996] UGSC 32 (17 May 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 29 of 1995

Judge

Manyindo, DCJ, Odoki, JSC, Oder, JSC

The Supreme Court found that the receivers were validly appointed under the debenture, as the evidence showed written appointments and compliance with the debenture's terms. The action by Uganda Bottlers Ltd was time-barred, being based on breach of contract, and not for recovery of land. The respondent was estopped from challenging the receivership due to its conduct and participation in the appointment and handover of assets. The sale and transfer of the property to Kampala Bottlers Ltd was valid, and no fraud was established. The registration of title by Kampala Bottlers Ltd was unimpeacha…

Source excerpt

• Receivership Appointment
• Debenture Enforcement
• Fraudulent Transfer
• Limitation Periods
• Registration Of Titles
• Agency Liability