[2005] UGCommC 28

[2005] UGCommC 28

Section 11 of the Mortgage Act does not void clause 4.2 of the Security Sharing Agreement, as it deals with the order of priority between different classes of encumbrancers, not within the same class. The parties were entitled to agree on conditions for sharing proceeds, including the requirement that a lender must...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] UGCommC 28
Parties
Applicant: Mr. Micheal Mawanda; Respondent: Development Finance Company of Uganda Ltd (DFCU); Respondent: East African Development Bank; Respondent: Ranch on the Lake Limited
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-CI 9 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application granted in favour of DFCU; Bank not entitled to share in proceeds
Legal Topics
Receivership Proceeds Distribution, Secured Creditor Priority, Security Sharing Agreement Interpretation, Mortgage Act Application
Source Language
english
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Receivership Proceeds Distribution Secured Creditor Priority Security Sharing Agreement Interpretation Mortgage Act Application

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. Micheal Mawanda

Applicant

Development Finance Company of Uganda Ltd (DFCU)

Respondent

East African Development Bank

Respondent

Ranch on the Lake Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether the East African Development Bank is entitled to share in the proceeds realised from the sale of securities by the Receiver appointed by DFCU.
  2. 2 Whether clause 4.2 of the Security Sharing Agreement is void for inconsistency with Section 11 of the Mortgage Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Bank took steps to enforce its security as required by the Security Sharing Agreement to qualify for sharing in the proceeds.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 11 of the Mortgage Act does not void clause 4.2 of the Security Sharing Agreement, as it deals with the order of priority between different classes of encumbrancers, not within the same class. The parties were entitled to agree on conditions for sharing proceeds, including the requirement that a lender must have enforced its security or taken active steps to do so. The evidence shows that the Bank did not take steps to enforce its security, nor did it concur in the appointment of the Receiver or the sale of the securities. The Bank's correspondence opposed the Receiver's appointment and sought a sale without receivership, and its subsequent actions did not amount to enforcement or...

Court Disposition

application granted in favour of DFCU; Bank not entitled to share in proceeds

Orders

  • The Receiver is directed to disburse the proceeds in accordance with the Security Sharing Agreement, excluding the Bank from sharing until DFCU's secured liabilities are met.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs in these proceedings.