Wakilii

Kyejusa Henry and Another v Placid Maria Ssekamate and Others (Civil Application No. 662 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 299 · 2025 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a mandatory injunction and a temporary injunction pending the determination of Civil Appeal No. 423 of 2024
Decision
Application for a mandatory and temporary injunction refused; costs to abide the outcome of Civil Appeal No. 423 of 2024

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The single Justice declined to determine the mandatory injunction, holding that such an order at the Court of Appeal must be granted by a full bench, not a single Justice. On the temporary injunction, although the applicants showed a prima facie arguable appeal, they failed to demonstrate irreparable damage: the vacant suit land's value is ascertainable and recoverable in damages, and mere sentimental attachment is insufficient. The balance of convenience favoured the respondents, who hold registered title. Granting the order would place a person not in legal or physical possession into possession, reversing the High Court's refusal in Miscellaneous Application No. 823 of 2024. The application was accordingly refused.

Facts

The 1st respondent obtained High Court (Land Division) judgment in Civil Suit No. 596 of 2016 against the applicants, declaring that the 1st applicant's certificate of title (LRV 4238 Folio 24 Plot 35A Windsor Crescent, Kampala) had been illegally created over part of the 1st respondent's freehold and was a nullity. The applicants filed Civil Appeal No. 423 of 2024 and served a Notice of Appeal on 25 March 2024. The day after service, the Commissioner Land Registration cancelled the 1st applicant's title in compliance with the High Court judgment, and the residue land was subsequently transferred to the 3rd respondent, which became the registered proprietor. The applicants' earlier High Court application (Miscellaneous Application No. 823 of 2024) for a mandatory injunction and stay was refused. The suit land is undeveloped and unutilised. The applicants then sought injunctive relief from the Court of Appeal to restore the position existing when the Notice of Appeal was served and to restrain dealings in the land pending the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether a single Justice of the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction.
  2. Whether the applicants established the conditions for a temporary injunction (a prima facie arguable appeal, irreparable damage, and the balance of convenience) pending the determination of the appeal.
  3. Whether an injunction can be granted against the 3rd respondent who was not a party to the suit and appeal from which the application arose.

Orders

  • The Court declines to determine the first leg of the application (mandatory injunction), it being a matter for a full bench.
  • The application for a temporary injunction is declined.
  • The order for a mandatory injunction is also denied.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key headnotes

Injunctions — Mandatory Injunction — Jurisdiction of a Single Justice of the Court of Appeal
A mandatory injunction at the Court of Appeal, which would require an assessment of whether an illegality has been established, is granted by a full bench of the Court and not by a single Justice; a single Justice should therefore decline to determine such a prayer.
Injunctions — Mandatory Injunction — Exceptional Circumstances
A mandatory injunction, being coercive in compelling a party to restore the applicant to a prior position, is granted cautiously and only in special or exceptional circumstances, typically where the injury caused is severe and ongoing and justice demands immediate intervention.
Injunctions — Temporary Injunction — Conditions for Grant
A temporary injunction will issue only where the applicant shows a prima facie case with a probability of success and that they might otherwise suffer irreparable injury not adequately compensable in damages; where the court is in doubt on these points it decides the application on the balance of convenience.
Injunctions — Temporary Injunction — Irreparable Damage — Sentimental Attachment to Land
Irreparable damage means injury that cannot be undone or adequately atoned for in damages; the value of vacant land can be ascertained and compensated in monetary terms, and a mere asserted sentimental or emotional attachment to land, unsubstantiated, does not amount to irreparable damage.
Injunctions — Orders Against a Non-Party — Inherent Powers under Rule 2(2)
Although the Court has wide discretionary and inherent powers under Rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions to make orders necessary for attaining the ends of justice, including against a non-party, those powers must be exercised judiciously and within the rules and principles of law.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.43

Cases cited (13)

  • Haruna Sentongo v I & M Bank Ltd (Civil Application No. 113 of 2023)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General and Another (Constitutional Application No. 06 of 2013)
  • Shiv Construction Co. Ltd v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
  • Saleh Kamba & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2013)
  • Zhang Juan and 2 others v Chen Chao and 2 others (Civil Application No. 75 of 2023)
  • Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter & 5 Others [2013] eKLR
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Robert Kavuma v Hotel International (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. [1973] EA 358
  • American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] 1 All ER 504
  • Jayndrakumar Devechand Devani v Haridas Vallabhdas Bhadresa & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1971)
  • Alcon International Limited v New Vision Printing and Publishing Co. Limited (Civil Application No. 4 of 2010)
  • Attorney General v Nakibuule Gladys Kisekka [2018] UGSC 30
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.