High Court Declines to Grant Certificate of Urgency in Mortgage Foreclosure Dispute Due to Self-Created Delay

Waboga David
Aug 5
3 min read

Introduction

In litigation, rarely do litigants apply to court to have their matter fixed urgently, as this alters the court administration system, since there's already a cause list determining when a matter shall be heard—either as per the notices on ECCMIS or based on the last court appearance of the parties.

However, during court vacation periods or when exceptional circumstances arise, litigants may apply to court to have their matters heard out of the ordinary schedule. To do so, they must obtain a certificate of urgency, which is not granted as a matter of course.

In the recent case of Edge Technologies Limited v KCB Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 310 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 610 (1 August 2025), Justice Stephen Mubiru reaffirmed the stringent standard for granting such certificates, emphasizing that courts must not rubber-stamp applications merely because they allege urgency.

In his ruling, Justice Mubiru reiterated four core principles:

Urgency is not automatic:
A certificate of urgency will not be granted merely because the applicant asserts that the matter is pressing. Courts must independently assess whether there are exceptional and peculiar circumstances justifying deviation from the ordinary court schedule.
Self-created urgency is fatal:
Where an applicant delays seeking redress despite being aware of impending harm, courts will not condone their inaction. Urgency must not be manufactured by waiting until the last minute.
Prompt action is required:
Even delays caused by a party's legal counsel can undermine an application’s credibility. Applicants must act with reasonable diligence and immediacy once the cause of action becomes apparent.
Substance over form:
The court will also assess whether the matter has prima facie merit, and will not grant a certificate of urgency to a claim that is plainly frivolous or bound to fail. A matter must be substantive and arguable to justify urgent intervention.

Background

On 14 December 2021, the applicant entered into a multi-credit facility worth UGX 6 billion with the respondent. After restructuring in January 2022, the facility was secured with a mortgage over properties in Kyaggwe Block 535.

Following the applicant's default, the respondent issued a notice of sale on 25 September 2024, advertising the property for sale on 7 July 2025 in the Daily Monitor.

The applicant filed a suit on 8 July 2025 challenging the facility’s validity and, subsequently, two applications—one for a temporary injunction and another for an interim injunction—on 28 July 2025.

To facilitate hearing of these during the court’s vacation, the applicant sought a certificate of urgency.

Applicant’s Submissions

The applicant’s counsel argued that:

The directors were unaware of procedures to challenge the foreclosure.

Delay in filing was due to counsel’s failure, not the applicant's.

The imminent sale warranted urgent court intervention.

Court’s Decision

Justice Mubiru dismissed the application, holding that the applicant failed to demonstrate genuine urgency, citing multiple reasons:

The court must independently assess urgency—not merely accept the applicant’s assertions. Drawing from Kuvarega v Registrar General and Dynamic Sisters Trading v Nedbank Ltd, the court emphasized that urgency requires immediate and unavoidable need for intervention, not delays followed by last-minute litigation.

The court further noted that, the notice of sale dated 25 September 2024 gave the applicant 10 months to act. Supporting affidavits were sworn on 5 July 2025, but applications were only filed three weeks later on 28 July 2025. No adequate explanation was given for the delay.

The judge referenced the decision of Sibongelenn Radebe v Aurum Institute where similar delay led to dismissal.

Courts must discourage litigants from waiting until deadlines are imminent before seeking judicial relief.

Even where urgency exists, an application devoid of a realistic prospect of success should not be entertained as urgent.

The judge found no compelling reason why relief could not wait until after court vacation.

“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.”

Final Orders

“This application does not merit the grant of a certificate of urgency and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.”

Key Takeaways:

A certificate of urgency will not be granted merely because the applicant claims the matter is pressing. Courts must independently assess the existence of exceptional and peculiar circumstances.
Where an applicant delays seeking legal redress despite knowledge of impending harm, courts will reject urgency claims.
Delay—even due to counsel’s omission—undermines the credibility of claimed urgency.
Courts will consider both the urgency and the prima facie merits of the case before certifying a matter as urgent.