Overview:
The case arose from a UGX 6 billion credit facility extended by KCB Bank to Edge Technologies in 2021. After a restructuring in 2022, the loan was secured by mortgaged property in Kyaggwe Block 535. The bank issued a notice of sale on September 25, 2024, advertising the mortgaged property for public auction on July 7, 2025 due to loan default.
Kampala – August 5, 2025 — The High Court has reaffirmed the strict threshold required to obtain a certificate of urgency, following its recent decision in Edge Technologies Limited v KCB Bank Limited (Misc. App No. 310 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 610. Presiding judge, Justice Stephen Mubiru, dismissed an application by Edge Technologies seeking to expedite proceedings during the court’s vacation period, warning that urgency cannot be self-created or based solely on an applicant’s assertion.
The case arose from a UGX 6 billion credit facility extended by KCB Bank to Edge Technologies in 2021. After a restructuring in 2022, the loan was secured by mortgaged property in Kyaggwe Block 535. The bank issued a notice of sale on September 25, 2024, advertising the mortgaged property for public auction on July 7, 2025 due to loan default.
Edge Technologies only challenged the foreclosure through court filings on July 8, 2025, one day after the scheduled sale. The company later filed applications for both a temporary and interim injunction on July 28, 2025, seeking to halt the sale—and requested a certificate of urgency to fast-track the hearing during the court’s recess.
In court, counsel for the applicant argued that the delay in filing was not due to the directors but the negligence of their legal representatives. They also cited the imminent threat of property loss as justification for emergency judicial intervention.
However, Justice Mubiru rejected the request, holding that the applicant had failed to establish true urgency. Citing decisions such as Kuvarega v Registrar General and Dynamic Sisters Trading v Nedbank Ltd, the judge emphasized that urgency must be “immediate and unavoidable,” not manufactured by “waiting until the last minute.”
He noted that the applicant had a 10-month window between the notice of sale and the auction date to seek redress but failed to act promptly. Even after swearing affidavits on July 5, the company waited another three weeks to file applications—an unexplained delay that undercut its claim of urgency.
The court also cited Sibongelenn Radebe v Aurum Institute, a South African case in which similar delays led to dismissal. Mubiru warned that even during vacation periods, urgency must not be presumed and that courts will reject efforts to “leapfrog regular court processes.”
“Urgency must not be self-created by an applicant, as a consequence of the applicant not having brought the application at the first available opportunity,” he said in his ruling.
The court concluded that the application lacked merit, both procedurally and substantively, and dismissed it without costs.
Key Judicial Principles Reaffirmed:
- Urgency must be exceptional and not merely alleged.
- Self-inflicted delays defeat claims of urgency.
- Even legal counsel’s omissions do not excuse late filings.
- Substantive merit is considered alongside urgency when certifying cases for expedited hearing.
Implications:
This ruling serves as a caution to litigants and legal practitioners who seek to bypass ordinary court schedules under the guise of urgency. Courts will now be more critical in evaluating whether urgency is justified—especially during vacation periods—and will demand clear evidence of both necessity and diligence.
For the legal community, the decision signals a tightening of the standards for certificates of urgency, and a reminder that delay—whether intentional or negligent—will not be rewarded with expedited hearings.