[2024] UGHC 926

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT HOIMA

CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 008 OF 2023 [Arising from Misc. Application No. 23 of 2023) (All arising from Civil No. 22 of 2023)

## ENCOT MICROFINANCE LIMITED::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

#### **VERSUS**

# KYATEREKERA IBRAHIM::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE BYARUHANGA JESSE RUGYEMA

# <table> RULING

### Introduction

This is an appeal by a Notice of Motion filed under **Orders 50 r. 8** $\vert 1 \vert$ & 52 rr 1 & 3 CPR and S. 98 CPA against the ruling and orders of the Ag. Assistant Registrar, High Court of Uganda at Hoima, H/W Bamwiite Emmanuel in Misc. Application No. 23 of 2023 delivered on the $13/9/2023$ . $\langle \mathcal{L} \rangle = \langle \mathbf{1} \rangle_{\mathcal{L}^2} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$

## **Background**

$\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{L})$

$\overline{X}$ $\overline{Z}$

- [2] On the $5/5/2022$ , the Respondent obtained from the Appellant a loan facility to a tune of **Ugx. 40,000,000/=** being the principal at an interest rate of 30% per annum repayable in 12 months. The Respondent mortgaged his land comprised in FRV MAS.111 Folio 1, Bugahya Block 17, Plot 1330 situate at Busiisi, Hoima District as security for the loan and a legal mortgage was registered on the certificate of title. - [3] The Respondent defaulted on the loan and the Appellant issued a default notice on 22/9/2022 notifying him to clear his arrears amounting to Ugx. 10,651,558/= within 45 working days' failure of which his entire outstanding loan in the sum of Ugx. $48,651,558/$ = stood to be recalled. $\frac{1}{2} \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} \mu_{\text{eff}} & \mu_{\text{eff}} & \mu_{\text{eff}} & \mu_{\text{eff}} \\ \mu_{\text{eff}} & \mu_{\text{eff}} & \mu_{\text{eff}} & \mu_{\text{eff}} \end{array} \right]$

$\approx \varnothing$

$p^{\frac{p}{2}} - \frac{p}{2} = \frac{p^2}{2}$ $\frac{q}{2} - \frac{q}{2} - \frac{q}{2} - \frac{q}{2}$ $\otimes t$

$\gamma_2 = 85$

$\infty = \pi - \overline{x}$

$\begin{array}{cc} \cdot & \cdot \\ & \cdot & 1 \end{array}$

- $[4]$ On the $1/12/2022$ , the Respondent was issued with another notice of the Appellant's intention to sell the mortgaged security unless the Respondent cleared the entire loan balance before the expiry of 21 working days' notice. As a result, upon the expiry of the 21 working days, the Appellant advertised the mortgaged property for sale in the Daily Monitor Newspaper of Wednesday the 22/3/2022 and served an eviction notice on the Respondent. The mortgaged property was eventually on the $13/6/2023$ sold to a prospective buyer at Ugx. $60,000,000/$ =, the assessed market value with a down payment of Ugx. 18,000,000/= and the balance of Ugx. $42,000,000/$ = to be paid upon the Appellant securing vacant possession from the Respondent. - $[5]$ On the $30/6/2023$ , the Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 22 of 2023 against the Appellant challenging and or restraining the sale of the mortgaged property. The Respondent further filed M. A. No. 23 of 2023 seeking for a temporary injunction restraining the Appellant from selling off the mortgaged property until final determination of the suit.

$\alpha$ $\langle \hat{a} \rangle$

- The Registrar of this court granted the application on $13/9/2023$ $[6]$ on condition that the Respondent deposited $Ugx. 20,000,000/=$ to the Appellant, within 30 days of the grant of the order, as a top up to the already paid $Ugx.$ 16,000,000/= in fulfilment of the mandatory security deposit requirement under **Regulation 13(1)** of the Mortgage Regulations, 2012. - $[7]$ The Appellant was dissatisfied with the order of the learned Registrar and filed this appeal on the following grounds:

$\epsilon e^{-\frac{2\pi i}{\beta}}$ , $e^{\epsilon} = \frac{1}{2}$ , $e^{\frac{2\pi i}{\beta}} = \frac{1}{2}$ , $e^{\frac{2\pi i}{\beta}} = \frac{1}{2}$ , $e^{\frac{2\pi i}{\beta}} = \frac{1}{2}$ , $e^{\frac{2\pi i}{\beta}} = \frac{1}{2}$ , $e^{\frac{2\pi i}{\beta}} = \frac{1}{2}$ , $e^{\frac{2\pi i}{\beta}} = \frac{1}{2}$ , $e^{\frac{2\pi i}{\beta}} = \frac{1}{2}$ , $e^{\frac{2\pi i$

$\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccccccccccc} \hline \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc} \hline \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc} \hline \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc} \hline \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc} \hline \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccccccc} \hline \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccccccc} \hline \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc} \hline \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc} \hline \end{array} \qquad \begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc} \hline \end{array$

$\frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad \frac{1}{\mu} \quad$

$\alpha \cdot a_{j}$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br> $\alpha'$ <br>

$\begin{array}{ccc} \Gamma & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow \\ \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow \\ \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow \\ \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow \\ \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow \\ \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow \\ \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow \\ \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow \\ \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow \\ \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow \\ \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow \\ \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow \\ \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow \\ \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow & \longrightarrow &$

$\overline{a} = \overline{a} \overline{a}$

$\mathbb{R} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$

That the learned Ag. Assistant Registrar erred in law and fact $1.$ when he improperly evaluated the affidavit evidence on record thereby holding that the Respondent had already paid to the $\mathcal{R}_{\text{max}}$ Appellant Ugx. 16,000,000/= in fulfilment of the mandatory security deposit requirement under Regulation $13(1)$ of the Mortgage Regulations 2012.

$\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$ 10 $\sim$

$\begin{array}{ccccccccc} & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &$

$\mathbb{R} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$

$\mathcal{M} = \mathcal{M}$

$\begin{array}{c} \mathbf{S} \\ \vdots \\ \mathbf{S} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{c} \mathbf{S} \\ \mathbf{S} \\ \mathbf{S} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{c} \mathbf{S} \\ \mathbf{S} \\ \mathbf{S} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{c} \mathbf{S} \\ \mathbf{S} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{c} \mathbf{S} \\ \mathbf{S} \end{array} \quad \begin{array}{c} \mathbf{S} \\ \mathbf{S} \end{array}$

$\mathbb{R}^{n-2\theta} \times_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}}$

- That the learned Ag. Assistant Registrar erred in law and fact 2. when he ordered the Respondent to deposit only Ugx. $2,000,000/=$ as a top up payment for the security deposit requirement under Regulation 13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations, 2012. - $\mathfrak{Z}$ That the learned Ag. Assistant Registrar erred in law and fact when he failed to evaluate the affidavit evidence on record thereby holding that the Respondent had satisfied the grounds for the grant of a temporary injunction involving mortgaged property. - [8] In the affidavit in support of the application deposed by Ngabitho Moris, the Appellant's Director, the Appellant sought the following orders: - The ruling and orders of the learned Ag. Assistant Registrar in 1. Misc. Application No. 23 of 2023 allowing an application for a temporary injunction were contrary to the statutory provisions under $R.13(1)$ of the Mortgage Regulations, 2012 and ought to be set aside. - The order in M. A No. 23 of 2023 be substituted with an order $2.$ directed to the Respondent to make the mandatory precondition payment of 30% of either the forced sale value of the - mortgaged property or the outstanding loan amounts. - $\mathfrak{Z}$ . That costs of this appeal be provided for.

$\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$

$\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}}$ $\frac{2}{3}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{R}$

$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{M}}$

$\frac{1}{8}$ $\frac{1}{12}$ $\frac{1}{8}$ $\frac{1}{12}$ $\frac{1}{8}$ $\frac{1}{12}$ $\frac{1}{8}$ $\frac{1}{12}$ $\frac{1}{8}$ $\frac{1}{12}$ $\frac{1}{8}$ $\frac{1}{12}$ $\frac{1}{8}$ $\frac{1}{12}$ $\frac{1}{12}$ $\frac{1}{12}$ $\frac{1}{12}$ $\frac{1}{12}$

$\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{2}$

$\alpha\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$

$\mathcal{L}^{\pm} = \mathcal{L}^{\pm}$

$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\n& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &$

$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\n& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &$

$\begin{array}{c}\n\begin{array}{c}\n\begin{array}{c}\n\begin{array}{c}\n\begin{array}{c}\n\begin{array}{c}\n\begin{array}{c}\n\begin{array}{c}\n\end{array}\n\end{array}\n\end{array}\n\end{array}\n\end{array}$

### The law on appeal by the $1^st$ Appellate Court.

- It is trite that on the first appeals as the instant one, the first $[9]$ appellate court has a duty to re-evaluate the evidence adduced before the trial court as a whole by giving it fresh and exhaustive scrutiny and then draw its own conclusion of fact and determine whether on the evidence the decision of the trial court should stand, see Selle & Anor Vs Associated Motor Boat Co. Ltd & Ors [1968] EA 123. - [10] Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant Mr. George Bijik submitted quite extraneously, by referring to the Appellant's written

$\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \mathcal{L}} = \frac{\mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1}} = \frac{\mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1}} = \frac{\mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1}} = \frac{\mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1}} = \frac{\mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1}} = \frac{\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1} \cdot \mathbf{1}} = \frac{\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1} \$

$\frac{3}{\frac{3}{\frac{3}{\frac{3}{\frac{3}{\frac{3}{\frac{3}{\frac{3}{$

$\begin{pmatrix} \mathcal{Z} \\ \mathcal{Z} \end{pmatrix}$

$\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$

း ပိုက်ကျောင္းတာ အဲ့အီးကိုးကို အတိုက္ (၁) ကိုးသားေတာ္ ေရး ေရး သား

$\frac{1}{\pi}$

$\tilde{a}$ s a

$\mathcal{D} = \mathcal{R}$

statement of defence thus the merits of the pending C. S. No. 22 of **2023,** that according to the trial Registrar of this court, a top up of Ugx. 2,000,000/= was paid in addition to Ugx. 16,000,000/= that was allegedly paid to the Appellant, all totalling to Ugx. 18,000,000/= which constituted the 30% of the value of the mortgaged property or the outstanding amount thus complying with R. $13(1)$ of the Mortgage Regulations. That it should be noted that the 30% security deposit under R.13(1) of the Mortgage is charged on the forced sale value of the mortgaged property or the outstanding balance. That whatever a borrower has already paid prior to the institution of any suit in court is not part of the amount considered in determining the 30% security deposit because that amount is already paid and not in dispute. The 30% security deposit is charged on the amount that the lender considers to be the outstanding balance at the time the borrower files a suit or seeks for an injunction. I agree with this $\mathbb{E}[\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{F})] = \mathbb{E}[\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{F})] = \mathbb{E}[\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{F})] = \mathbb{E}[\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{F})] = \mathbb{E}[\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{F})] = \mathbb{E}[\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{F})]$ $\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2$ proposition. $\mathcal{L}_{\text{max}} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{max}}$ ಾ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ ಕಾರ್ಟ್ ಕಾರ್ಟ್ ಸ್ಟ್ ಸ್ಟ್ ಸ್ಟ್ ಸ್ಟ್ ಸ್ಟ್ ಸ್ಟ್ ಸ್ಟ್ $\mathcal{R} = \mathcal{R} \oplus \mathcal{R}$

[11] Counsel submitted further that it is unclear how the trial Registrar arrived at the figures of Ugx. 16,000,000/= and Ugx. 2,000,000/= and what evidence he relied on to arrive at a conclusion that Ugx. 16,000,000/= was paid in conformity with Regulation 13 (1) of the Mortgage Regulations. It was his contention that no such payment was ever made by the Respondent. That before filing the main suit, the Respondent had paid only $Ugx. 18,000,203/$ = with an outstanding balance of Ugx. $45,359,611/$ =. He did not pay any other money apart from the "top up" of Ugx. 2,000,000/= arising from the impugned order of the Registrar. That the trial Registrar relied on what the Respondent had already paid under his loan obligations as a basis of considering the 30% security deposit which was erroneous since the 30% security deposit requirement is tagged to the outstanding balance owed by the defaulter or claimed by the lender. $\frac{15}{25}$ (25) $\frac{15}{255}$ $\frac{1}{25}$ $\frac{15}{25}$ $\begin{pmatrix}\n\overline{u} & \overline{u} \\ \overline{u} & \overline{u}\n\end{pmatrix}$ $\mathbb{E}_{\overline{u}}$ $\mathbb{E}_{\overline{u}}$

[12] Counsel concluded that as a result of the Ag. Assistant Registrar's orders in M. A No. 23 of 2023, the Appellant's efforts to recover what rightly owed to it was frustrated by the Respondent who is in default of his loan obligations because the prospective buyer of ်က်က ၊ လက် ဥာဂၢ မှ မြန်မာ မွေး

$\hat{\mathbf{z}}$

$\hat{K} \times K$ , $(\underline{x}_i^{\pm 1}, \hat{X}_i^{\pm 1}, \dots, \hat{x}_n^{\pm 1}) = \frac{2\pi}{n} \cos^2 (\underline{x}_i^{\pm 1} + \alpha \cdot \xi, \underline{x}_i^{\pm 1}, \dots, \hat{x}_n^{\pm 1})$ .

$\mathbb{R}^{\tilde{K}}_{\infty} \otimes \mathbb{R}^{\infty} \otimes \mathbb{R}^{\infty} \qquad \tilde{t} = \tilde{u}$

$\psi = -\frac{1}{2}$ , $\theta \ge \eta$ , $\psi = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\psi = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\psi = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\psi = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\psi = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\psi = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\psi = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\psi = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\psi = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\psi = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\psi = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\psi = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\psi = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\psi = \frac{1}{2}$ ,

$\overline{4}$

$\eta_1 = \eta_2$ $\tilde{g}_1 = \eta_3$ (36)

$\mathbb{R}^{n}$ , , $\mathbb{R}^{n} \otimes_{\mathbb{R}^{n}} \mathbb{R}^{n} \otimes_{\mathbb{R}^{n}} \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{n} \otimes_{\mathbb{R}^{n}} \mathbb{R}^{n}$

$\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L}$

the mortgaged property terminated the sale agreement and requested for a refund of his deposit of Ugx. 18,000,000/= which amount, has accordingly been refunded.

[13] Counsel for the Respondent on his part submitted supporting the Ag. Assistant Registrar's decision for the grant of a temporary injunction pending investigations of the complainant's of illegalities raised in C. S. No. 22 of 2023. Further that the instant appeal is devoid of merit, pre-mature, incompetent and an abuse of court process for offending procedure rules which require that when a ruling is made in an interlocutory application, it is not necessary to file an appeal against the interlocutory order made in the course of hearing separate from the final decision for such matters can more conveniently be considered in an appeal from the final decision of the main suit. He relied on the authorities of Sanyu Lwanga Musoke Vs Sam Galiwango [1997] V KALR 47 and Charles Harry Twagira Vs Uganda S. C. Crim. Appeal No. 27 of 2003.

[14] Lastly, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the application has been overtaken by events for reason that the mortgaged property had since been sold off by private treaty of Ugx. $60.000.000/=$ . ာက် မြန်မာ အနေနဲ႔ အနား အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ<br>အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မာ အမြန္မ

Consideration of the Appeal/Application.

$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\n& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &$

$\frac{a}{a}$ a $a \neq a$ prop $a \in \mathbb{R}$

$\mu = \alpha_{1} + \alpha_{2}^{2} + \alpha_{3}^{2} + \alpha_{4}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5}^{2} + \alpha_{5$

$\mathbb{E} \left[\frac{1}{2} \log^{2k} \left[1 - \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2}\right] + \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1$

$\omega = 1 - \omega$

$\mathbb{Z}^{\perp}$ $\mathbb{R}$ $\mathbb{Z}$

[15] The Appellant rely on R.13(1) of the Mortgage Regulations, 2012 in challenging the Ag. Assistant Registrar's order which provides $\eta^{(2)}_{11}$ = $\frac{K_1(0)}{2}$ = $\frac{K_1(0)}{2}$ = $\frac{K_1(0)}{2}$ = $\frac{K_1(0)}{2}$ = $\frac{K_1(0)}{2}$ = $\frac{K_1(0)}{2}$ = $\frac{K_1(0)}{2}$ = $\frac{K_1(0)}{2}$ = $\frac{K_1(0)}{2}$ = $\frac{K_1(0)}{2}$ = $\frac{K_1(0)}{2}$ = $\frac{K_1(0)}{2}$ = $\$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ thus:

$\approx$ $\approx$ $\approx$

"The court may on the application of the mortgagor, spouse, agent of the mortgage or any other interested party or for reasonable cause, adjourn a sale by public auction to a specified date and time upon payment of a security deposit of 30% of the forced sale value of the mortgaged property or outstanding amount".

$\sigma = 0$ $\mu_{\text{max}} = \mu_{\text{max}}^{\text{max}}$ $\mu_{\text{max}}^{\text{max}} = \mu_{\text{max}}^{\text{max}}$ .

$\label{eq:1} \mathbb{P}(\{X_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}) = \mathbb{P}(\mathbb{P}(\{X_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}})) = \mathbb{P}(\mathbb{P}(\{X_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}})) = \mathbb{P}(\mathbb{P}(\{X_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}})) = \mathbb{P}(\mathbb{P}(\{X_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}})) = \mathbb{P}(\mathbb{P}(\{X_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}})) = \mathbb{P}(\mathbb{P}(\{X_{i}\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}})) = \mathbb{P}(\mathbb$

$\overline{X} = \overline{X} + \overline{X}$

[16] On the interpretation of the above regulation, in Ferdsult Engineering Services Ltd & Anor Vs A. G. & Absa Bank (U).

$\cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$

<table>

State State State State State State State State State

$\sigma^{-\frac{1}{2}} \frac{R^2}{\sqrt{2}} = \sigma^{-\frac{1}{2}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sigma^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ , $\sigma^2 = 1$ , $\sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 = 1 - \sigma^2 =$ $\frac{a}{b} \rightarrow a \rightarrow a \qquad a \qquad a \rightarrow a \qquad b \rightarrow b \qquad c$

Constitutional Petition No. 18 of 2021, Court observed that the regulation imposes a pre-condition of payment of either 30% of the forced sale value of the mortgaged property or 30% of the outstanding amount.

It is apparent from the present case that Ag. Assistant Registrar in making the impugned order relied on 30% of the outstanding amount.

[17] In this case, it is not in dispute that by $30/6/2023$ when the Respondent instituted and filed C. S. No. 22 of 2023 challenging the Appellant's recalling of the loan with the intention to sell off the mortgaged property to recover the outstanding loan amount and restraining order of selling the property, and $13/9/2023$ when the impugned order was made by the Ag. Assistant Registrar, the Appellant had sold off the suit property which was conducted on $13/6/2023$ as per the affidavit in support of the application deposed by **Ngabitho Moris**, the Director of the Appellant. $\tilde{w}^{(0)}$ $\tilde{w}$ $\tilde{w}$ $\tilde{w}$

[18] By Para. 8.3 of the terms of the mortgage (Annex. "E" to the affidavit in support of the application), which bind the parties to the mortgage, it provided thus:

$\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L}$

"8.3 power of sale

$\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}$ $\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}$ $\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix}$

$\overline{3}$

$\mathcal{I}$

At any time after the security has become enforceable. ENCOT [The Appellant] may upon 21 working days' written notice but without having to apply to court or concurrence by the mortgagor, seek, transfer, take possession or otherwise dispose of or deal with the mortgaged property or any part there of (whether by private contract or $otherwise$ $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{L}$ $\mathcal{A} \subset \mathcal{A} \subset \mathcal{A} \subset \mathcal{A}$

[19] In this case, upon the Respondent's security of the loan becoming enforceable in the event of the default by the Respondent to service the loan occurring, the Appellant invoked the above term of the mortgage and on $13/6/2023$ proceeded to sell off the mortgage property to recover its outstanding loan owned by the Respondent to the Appellant. $\mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{N}}$ $\mathbf{r} = \mathbf{r} \mathbf{r}$

$\alpha^{-1}=\bar{\alpha}_1,\cdots,\bar{\alpha}_n=\bar{\alpha}_n$

$(24) \qquad \frac{10}{2} \cdot \frac{100}{3} \, , \qquad (3) \qquad (3) \qquad (4)$

$\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{E}_{\mathcal{L}}$

$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{L}}$

Under Para. 7 of the mortgage, it was provided thus; "7: vacant possession

$\alpha_1 = \beta_1 + \frac{m_1}{\sqrt{2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{m_1}{\sqrt{2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{$

$\omega^2 = \lambda e^{-\lambda} \qquad (1 - \lambda e^{-\lambda} - \omega^2 e^{-\lambda} - \omega^2 e^{-\lambda} - \omega^2 e^{-\lambda} - \omega^2 e^{-\lambda} - \omega^2 e^{-\lambda} e^{-\lambda}$

The mortgagor agrees that in the event ENCOT IThe Appellant] exercises its power of sale, the mortgagor shall peacefully vacate the mortgaged property, failing which ENCOT shall be at liberty to evict the mortgagor without recourse to court. The cost of such eviction shall be borne by the mortgagor".

[20] In the instant case, the mortgagor filed a suit against the Appellant complaining of irregularities during the sale of his security. The sale had been conducted by private treaty (R.10 of the Mortgage Regulations). The remedies available to the mortgagor in case of any irregularities during the sale are provided for under SS.33-36 of the Mortgage Act and R.16 of the Regulations there under and include an action against the mortgagee.

$\sim 2 \times 10^{-2}$

- [21] In this case, upon the sale, the Mortgagor exercised his right by filing C. S. No. 22 of 2023. It is therefore not true as alleged and contended by the Appellant that the Respondent frustrated the Appellant's efforts to recover the outstanding loan amounts by filing the suit and the order of the Ag. Assistant Registrar when both of the afore going occurred after the sale. The Appellant had the option under Para. 7 of the terms of the mortgage, upon satisfying the issuance of the necessary notices, to evict the mortgagor from the suit property without recourse to court in the event of the mortgagor's default in service of the loan as per the terms of the mortgage. The Appellant did not invoke its rights both under the Act, Regulations and the terms of the mortgage i.e. the right to take possession of the mortgaged property upon default of the mortgage terms and the mortgagee issuing the necessary notices to the mortgagor and eviction in case of the mortgagor's refusal to vacate the mortgaged property. - [22] It follows therefore that the impugned order was a moot with no practical relevance since the sale of the mortgaged property had taken place and therefore, this Court would be entitled to find that the Registrar's order had been overtaken by events. The impression presented by the Appellant is that the impugned order stopped the sale of the suit property in favour of the Respondent $\mathbb{C} \left[ \mathbb{R}^{n} \otimes \mathbb{C}^{n} \right] = \mathbb{C} \left[ \mathbb{C}^{n} \otimes \mathbb{C} \right] \otimes \mathbb{C} \left[ \mathbb{C} \right] \otimes \mathbb{C} \left[ \mathbb{C} \right] \otimes \mathbb{C} \left[ \mathbb{C} \right] \otimes \mathbb{C} \left[ \mathbb{C} \right] \otimes \mathbb{C} \left[ \mathbb{C} \right]$

$\alpha$ $\beta$ $\beta$

$\frac{1}{\left\vert \Delta_{\mathcal{X}}\right\vert }=\infty$

ಾಂಟಲ್ ಅಂಟುಕಾಟಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾ ಅವರು ಸಂಕರ್ಗ್ಯವರ್ ಸ್ಪಂಡ ಎಂಬ

$\label{eq:10} \Gamma = \frac{1}{2} \left[ -\frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \frac{1}{2} \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln \ln$

$\mathcal{R} = \mathcal{R}$

$\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{$

$\frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right) \right) + \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right) \right) + \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right) \right) + \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right) \right) + \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right) \right) + \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right) \right) + \frac{1}{2$

$\mathcal{A} \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathcal{A} \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathcal{A} \xrightarrow{\sim} \mathcal{A}$

$\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{A}}_{\mathcal{A}}$

without the Respondent fulfilling the legal requirements of depositing 30% of the outstanding loan amount. I find that the impugned order did neither stop the sale of the mortgaged property nor prohibited the mortgagee from exercising his rights of taking possession of the same since at the time of the order, the sale of the property had occurred. Whatever happened after the sale between the mortgagee and the prospective buyer cannot therefore be attributed to either the suit that was filed by the Respondent while exercising his rights under the Mortgage Act or the impugned order made therein. The Appellant sat on its rights provided under the Mortgage Act, the Regulations and the **Mortgage** itself by its failure to evict and take possession of the mortgaged property and the prospective buyer unreasonably used the Appellant's omission to exercise their statutory rights as an excuse to terminate the purchase agreement of the mortgaged property and demanded refund of his deposit on the property.

[23] Otherwise, the issues regarding the non-existent of the valuation report and its confirmation by court before issuance of a sale notice appear to me issues for the main suit on irregularities during the sale. The same apply to whether the loan transaction flouted any of the provisions of the Illiterates' Protection Act **Cap.78.** The appeal is definitely not incompetent and pre-mature as alleged by Counsel for the Respondent in his submissions on the grounds that the Appellant ought to have waited for the final conclusion of the suit and appeal at once against the decision by incorporating the flouting of R.13(1) of the Regulations as a ground of appeal because the appeal from such a decision would not be in this court but in the Court of Appeal of Uganda. The Appellant rightly exercised its rights of appeal against the order of the Registrar under **0.50 r8 CPR** which provides that;

> "Any person aggrieved by any order of a registrar may "appeal from the order to the High Court".

The authorities therefore cited by Counsel for the Respondent on this aspect are not applicable to the instant matter.

[24] The above notwithstanding, before sale of the mortgaged property under the Act and the Regulations, the mortgagee must first secure

နက်က များဆီး မှားပါ (၂၀၀၀) ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြေ<br>ကြောင်း ဆီး ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြောင်း ပြ

$\epsilon$ $\kappa$ $\sim$ $\epsilon$

$\frac{d}{dt}$ = $\frac{d}{dt}$ = $\frac{d}{dt}$ = $\frac{d}{dt}$ = $\frac{d}{dt}$ = $\frac{d}{dt}$ = $\frac{d}{dt}$ = $\frac{d}{dt}$ = $\frac{d}{dt}$

$\mathcal{F}^{(0)} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^2 \left( \frac{$

$\mathcal{L}^{(k-1)} = \mathcal{L}^{(k-1)} = \mathcal{L}^{(k-1)}$

$\mathcal{A} = \mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A} = \mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{A}$ $\mathcal{A} = \mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{A}$

$\overline{H} = \overline{u} + \overline{u}$ , $\overline{u} = \overline{u}$ , $\overline{u} = \overline{u}$

i a 🐲 🏓 🌷 i

$\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A}^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathcal{A})) = \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A}^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathcal{A}))$

the possession of the mortgaged property before conducting the sale. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the Appellant conducted a sale of the Respondent's mortgaged property. The assumption is that therefore; the sale was conducted upon the mortgagee securing possession of the same. This renders the claims by the Appellant that the Registrar's impugned order secured by the Respondent after the sale affected the sale becomes inconceivable. On the other hand, if the Appellant is to believed. that the impugned order affected the sale of the suit property, as I have already observed, the Appellant had sat on its rights. In this case, where the Respondent in the main suit appear to be contesting the outstanding loan amount as implied in his pleadings where he claims that the terms of the mortgage are unconscionable presents difficulty as to the amount of the outstanding loan until the suit is concluded.

[25] In view of the above where the Appellant sat on its rights and conducted the sale of the mortgaged property without first taking possession coupled with the Respondent's claim and contest of the outstanding loan amount, I would not disturb the Registrar's order as regards the amount of money the Respondent deposited as 30% of the outstanding loan amount. The appeal/application is in the premises found to lack merit. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

Dated at Hoima this 13^th day of September, 2024.

$\mathcal{L}^{\text{max}}_{\text{max}}$

$\sim$

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . **Byaruhanga Jesse Rugyema JUDGE** $n^{(M)}\alpha$

$\overline{g}$