Enforcement of Composite Loan Securities in Uganda: A Critical Analysis of the Mortgage Act, Cap 239 and the Security Interest in Movable Property Act, 2019, Cap 293

Access to credit in Uganda depends on the certainty with which lenders can realise their security on default, and on the fairness with which borrowers are treated in that process. Modern lending is increasingly secured not by a single security but by a composite of securities, a mortgage over land combined with a security interest over movable property and personal guarantees, taken together to secure one facility. This article critically analyses the enforcement of such composite loan securities under the two principal statutes, the Mortgage Act Cap 239 and the Security Interest in Movable Property Act 2019 Cap 293. It sets out the concept of composite security and the nature of a mortgage and of a security interest in movable property; it examines the legal framework, comprising the Constitution, the Mortgage Act, SIMPA, the Registration of Titles Act Cap 240, the Land Act Cap 236, the Contracts Act Cap 284 and the Financial Institutions Act Cap 57; and it analyses the enforcement remedies and their judicial treatment through decisions including Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank, Housing Finance Bank v Musisi, Housing Finance Bank v Mugisha, Ganafa v DFCU Bank and Aliku v Housing Finance Bank, together with the comparative authority of Santley v Wilde, Noakes v Rice and Cuckmere Brick v Mutual Finance. The article argues that, while the two statutes provide workable enforcement machinery, their uncoordinated operation, the persistence of undervalued and irregular sales, and the inadequacy of valuation and notice safeguards expose borrowers to real risk, and it recommends harmonisation of the two regimes, mandatory independent valuation, and effective judicial supervision of enforcement.