Wakilii

Lubega v Attorney General & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 31 of 2011; Miscellaneous Application 32 of 2011)

Constitutional Court · [2015] UGCC 97 · 2015 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated applications for a temporary injunction and interim order pending determination of a constitutional petition
Decision
Application for temporary injunction dismissed; mandatory injunction issued against the applicant to restore the status quo and the eviction of the 3rd respondent quashed as illegal

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 applicant sought a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from cancelling his title to or evicting him from disputed leasehold land, pending a constitutional petition. The Court held that the applicant, who had used police to evict the third respondent in violation of the Court's subsisting interim order to maintain the status quo, had acted in contempt and came to court with unclean hands. A party in contempt cannot obtain equitable relief until he purges the contempt. The applicant also failed to establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury, or that the balance of convenience favoured him. The application was dismissed; the Court instead issued a mandatory injunction requiring the applicant to restore the status quo and quashed the illegal eviction.

Facts

The applicant, registered proprietor of leasehold land at Plot 50-52 Nakivubo Road (the Baganda Bus Park land), filed Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2011 challenging a presidential directive of 20 July 2011 and a Committee of Inquiry report recommending cancellation of allegedly fraudulent titles. Alongside the petition he filed Applications Nos. 31 and 32 of 2011 for a temporary and interim injunction. On 31 May 2013 the Court consolidated the applications and issued an interim order preserving the status quo as to occupation and use of the land; at that time the third respondent, claiming to be the lawful assignee, was in possession and operating a bus park. The interim order was extended several times. On 15 March 2014, while that order remained in force, the applicant, acting on letters from the Attorney General and police, evicted the third respondent and took possession of the land, thereby changing the status quo the Court had ordered preserved.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be granted a temporary injunction pending determination of Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2011.
  2. Whether an applicant who has acted in contempt of the court's interim order to maintain the status quo can be granted equitable relief.

Orders

  • An injunction is issued against the applicant to restore the peaceable status quo that existed immediately before the Constitutional Petition and these consolidated applications were filed in this Court.
  • The eviction of the 3rd respondent on 15 March 2014 on advice or orders of the Attorney General, but in contempt of the Court's order, stands quashed as having been totally illegal.
  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of this application to the 3rd respondent.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs as between the Applicant and the 1st and 2nd respondents.
  • The Registrar is to take immediate steps to cause Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2011 to be listed for hearing.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant
An applicant for a temporary injunction must satisfy the court that he has a prima facie case with a probability of success and that he will suffer irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages; where the court is in doubt on these matters it decides the application on a balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo
A temporary injunction operates to maintain the status quo, meaning the existing state of affairs during the period immediately preceding the application, so that a party's position is not prejudiced until the disputed issues are resolved; such an order is not granted as a matter of course.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Duty to Obey Court Orders
A party who knows of a court order, whether or not that party regards the order as null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot choose to disobey it; the order must be complied with in totality, subject only to that party's right to challenge it through revision, review or appeal.
Equity — Clean Hands — Contempt as Bar to Relief
A party who has acted in contempt of a court order comes to court with unclean hands and cannot be heard or granted equitable relief in proceedings related to the same subject matter unless and until he has purged himself of the contempt.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.55
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.38(3)
  • Constitutional Court Rules r.1 and r.2
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 26
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 44(c)

Cases cited (9)

  • Hassan Basajjabalaba and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 9 of 2011)
  • Humphrey Nzeyi v Bank of Uganda and Another (Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 15
  • Devani v Bhadresa and Another [1972] EA 22
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Another v Edward Musisi (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • CHUCK V. CREMER (1 Corp Jemp 342)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson (1952) 2 All ER 575
  • Musisi and Another v Namugenyi Margaret (Constitutional Court Application No. 19 of 2011)
  • Nasser Kiingi v Kampala Capital City Authority and Another (Constitutional Application No. 291 of 2011)
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.