1. I have considered the Notice of Motion dated 26 March 2024 together with the affidavit filed in support of the same and sworn on even date.
2. It is important to state that the application was served in March, 2024, and to date, no reply has been filed opposing the same.
3. On the date of the hearing, counsel for the respondent indicated that he wished to cease acting for the respondent; and brought the courts attention to his application in respect of the same.
4. The court notes that the present application was however filed and served while counsel was on record for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent stated that he wished to oppose the application and simultaneously stated he had no instructions.
5. The court also notes that counsel for the respondent filed an affidavit stating that his own client, the respondent, had filed a similar proceeding concerning the same subject matter in the ELC and had appointed another counsel to act on its behalf in relation to the said matter.
6. Based on the above, the court was inclined to proceed with the hearing of the present application despite the untidy circumstances. Especially so, because of the nature of the application.
7. In sum, the application seeks to prevent the Plaintiff from destroying the suit property; to allow the defendant to access its power of sale; and to repair the property with assistance, if necessary, from the Police.
8. Noting the ruling by my brother Majanja. J issued on 22nd March, 2023, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for injunction; and confirmed the Bank’s statutory power of sale of the suit property, I am of the view that the power of sale had already crystallized once that ruling was issued.
9. I am satisfied that the application ought to be allowed because the prayers sought before this court are merely to give effect to the previous orders issued by Majanja, J., and to protect the suit property.
10. The application is allowed with costs.
2. It is important to state that the application was served in March, 2024, and to date, no reply has been filed opposing the same.
3. On the date of the hearing, counsel for the respondent indicated that he wished to cease acting for the respondent; and brought the courts attention to his application in respect of the same.
4. The court notes that the present application was however filed and served while counsel was on record for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent stated that he wished to oppose the application and simultaneously stated he had no instructions.
5. The court also notes that counsel for the respondent filed an affidavit stating that his own client, the respondent, had filed a similar proceeding concerning the same subject matter in the ELC and had appointed another counsel to act on its behalf in relation to the said matter.
6. Based on the above, the court was inclined to proceed with the hearing of the present application despite the untidy circumstances. Especially so, because of the nature of the application.
7. In sum, the application seeks to prevent the Plaintiff from destroying the suit property; to allow the defendant to access its power of sale; and to repair the property with assistance, if necessary, from the Police.
8. Noting the ruling by my brother Majanja. J issued on 22nd March, 2023, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for injunction; and confirmed the Bank’s statutory power of sale of the suit property, I am of the view that the power of sale had already crystallized once that ruling was issued.
9. I am satisfied that the application ought to be allowed because the prayers sought before this court are merely to give effect to the previous orders issued by Majanja, J., and to protect the suit property.
10. The application is allowed with costs.