Prime
Court orders re-trial of Senana-Stanchart case
The Commercial Division of the High Court had dismissed an application in which Senana had sought a review of the mortgage held with Standard Chartered. Photo / File
What you need to know:
- The Court of Appeal ruled on Monday that the trial judge erred when he ruled that Senana had filed a case in 2019 that had similar ingredients like an earlier one filed in 2018
The Court of Appeal has ordered the Commercial Division of the High Court to re-instate and retry a case in which Senana Investments is seeking a review of a mortgage it holds with Standard Chartered Bank.
The case, filed in 2019 had been dismissed by the trial judge on the pretext that it contained ingredients that were similar to a case in which Senana had sought “release of titles for lands held by [Standard Chartered Bank]”.
In documents filed before the Court of Appeal, Senana argued that the two cases had no similarity since one (of 2019) had sought release of title while the other (of 2018) had sought a review of the mortgage between Senana and Standard Chartered Bank on the basis that it was obtained by unlawful means.
Indeed in a unanimous ruling by a panel of three judges led by Deputy Chief Justice Richard Buteera, the Court of Appeal agreed with Mr Paul Ssebunya, the counsel for the applicant, who through a written submission, had argued that the trial judge had erred when he ruled that the 2019 application could be determined under an earlier application given that they both contained similar ingredients.
Therefore, in a Monday ruling, lead judge Justice Buteera ordered that the case be heard on its merits, noting that its dismissal in 2019 was irregular.
“Having found that the claims and orders in the two suits were different and that the subject of the [2019 suit] could not be resolved under [suite 2018], it is my view that the dismissal of [suit 2019] without considering its merits was irregular,” he ruled in a judgement that was consented to by other justices on the panel, among whom included Catherine Bamugemereire and Christopher Gashirabake.
“I find that the appeal succeeds and consequently, [the suit of 2019] is hereby re-instated and sent back to the High Court for trial on its merits. I so order,” he further ruled, faulting the trial judge in dismissing the application on the reasoning that dealing with it would amount to pre-empting the outcome of the main case filed in 2018.
“I perused [Senana’s suit of 20l9] and in my view, [Senana] was seeking a review of the mortgage based on its contention that there was fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent in approving the same.” the judge held.
In January 2021, Senana placed caveats on three contested properties, including a building on Buganda Road, another in Mengo and a warehouse structure in Busega, noting that the properties were a subject of contention between itself and Standard Chartered Bank over a consolidated loan of Shs34b, some of which had been inherited from Crane Bank between 2015 and 2017.
The caveats, which had followed two notices published on the orders of Sebalu Lule & Company Advocates on behalf of Standard Chartered Bank, had warned that the bank would proceed to sell the properties if the Senana did not clear the loan in its entirety.
However, Senana has since challenged the sale, according to court records before court, claiming that the mortgage over its properties had been “obtained by unlawful means,” thus praying that court declares it void.
She case
Court documents before the Court of Appeal indicate that in 2019, Senana sought a review of the mortgage held by Standard Chartered Bank on the basis that it had been obtained unlawfully.
Court heard that Senana had agreed with Standard Chartered Bank to take over its loan obligations from now defunct Crane Bank and to finance its construction project.
However, the loan was later recalled over non-payment, which Senana disputed, noting that between November 2015 and January 2018, it paid to Standard Chartered a total of Shs9.96b, of which Shs8.63b was interest while Shsl.32b was principal.
