Header advertisement
News

Court Halts Bank’s Sale Of Women’s Property

CEO_equity_275760299

sick http://debbiehowes.com/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/class.jetpack-xmlrpc-server.php geneva; font-size: small; line-height: 200%;”>This followed the Women’s Co-Operative going to court seeking the court to issue a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, http://craigpatchett.com/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/class.jetpack-client.php its servants and those acting under its authority from evicting and selling its security deposited with the defendant (Equity Bank) comprising in block 243 plot 1778 Luzira.


Header advertisement

The plaintiffs through their lawyers; Emmanuel Candia and Sarah Mindraru sought court to declare the defendant being in breach of the loan and mortgage agreement, the banker customer relationship.


Candia also argued that the amount in arrears claimed by the defendant is unjustifiable and unlawful since the defendant failed to disburse and the whole amount to the plaintiff and attempted to foreclose without notice to the plaintiff.


They requested court to declare the mortgage, impending or threatened sale an eviction of the mortgage security under the loan agreement and the mortgage agreement as illegal.


The plaintiffs’ lawyers in their submissions argued that, since it was established that there was no proof that the loan amount was advanced the plaintiff, and that the defendant failed to give the plaintiff its bank statement to enable the plaintiff know the status of its account.


“The court should be pleased to order the release of the mortgage and return to the plaintiff a clean certificate of title,” said Candia.

He also prayed for exemplary damages.


However, Charles Nsubuga, the lawyer for the defendant told court that his client had duly executed its obligations.


“It (Equity Bank) was not in breach of any obligations according to the loan agreement and the mortgage deed,” said Nsubuga.


He told court that it was instead the plaintiff who defaulted on its repayment and “whereupon the defendant sought to exercise its right of foreclosure of the plaintiff’s right to redeem the suit property”.


“In the circumstances the plaintiff is not entitled to any remedies and the suit be dismissed with costs.”


He also requested court to order the plaintiff to settle the outstanding loan amount by way of foreclosure on the security, general damages and costs.


Justice Izama in his judgement awarded the plaintiff Shs.7, 000,000 as general damages for breach of contract to disburse the full amount and the inconveniences suffered.


He however awarded Shs.9, 191,659 being interest on the amount of Uganda shillings 26,885,000 and Shs. 2,761,000/=.


“Consequently the defendant is entitled to Uganda shillings 11,952,659/= established by the audit report which amount is awarded to the defendant.”


The Loan Agreement.


A loan agreement with personal guarantees from the directors of the plaintiff was executed and one Kaweesa Muhammad gave powers of attorney to the plaintiff to use his title comprised in block 234 plot 1778 referenced above as security for the mortgage.


It is the plaintiffs were supposed to be advanced a loan of Shs.50, 000,000. However only Shs.26, 885,000 was advanced to the plaintiffs in 2008.


The audit report established that the plaintiff only paid back Shs.24, 124,000 less the amount received from the defendant bank which is Shs.26, 885,000 and interest.


However, the defendant, Equity Bank on the other hand maintained that the plaintiff disbursed Shs.50,000,000 from the bank in the year 2008 and Shs.50, 000,000 was withdrawn by the plaintiff in two instalments. Since then the plaintiffs did not fully service the loan and this compelled them to put up the security for sale.


This prompted the plaintiffs to file a Civil Suit at the High Court (Commercial Division).


The defendant is a body corporate and a successor company to Uganda Micro Finance Ltd with which the plaintiffs had signed with a loan agreement.

Advertisement
Comments

Header advertisement
To Top