Resty Nantongo v David Kayondo [1994] UGSC 1

Supreme Court · 1994 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Appeal from a High Court order granting the plaintiff a temporary injunction

Decision

Appeal allowed and the High Court's interim injunction discharged

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 defendant held the only registered interest in the disputed land, a lease registered in September 1993 together with permission to build, neither of which the plaintiff had challenged. The Supreme Court held that a temporary injunction will not lie to restrain a party from exercising rights under an unchallenged registered lease. To restrain the exercise of an alleged right the plaintiff must show substantial grounds for doubting that right, and a very strong case is needed to interfere with an admitted right on an alleged equity. The plaintiff failed to meet that standard, so no balance-of-convenience inquiry was necessary and no injunction should have issued. The appeal was allowed and the interim injunction discharged with costs in both courts.

Facts

Both the plaintiff Kayondo and the defendant Resty Nantongo negotiated to buy land known as Kibuga Block 7 plot No. 67 at Ndeeba from its owner, Segujja. Kayondo entered an agreement and obtained an executed transfer, which he presented for registration on 26 August 1993. Registration failed because Resty, who had agreed to buy the same land on 30 July 1993, had lodged a caveat on the title; her own transfer was executed but not registered. Neither buyer secured registered title. Resty then obtained a lease of the land, registered on 10 September 1993, giving her a registered interest with the right to enter and develop the land, and on 1 November 1993 obtained Kampala City Council permission to build. Another High Court judge had extended Resty's caveat. Despite Resty's registered lease, the trial judge granted Kayondo injunctions restraining Resty from entering the land and from carrying out developments, without addressing the lease in his ruling.

Issues

Whether a temporary injunction should have been granted to restrain the defendant from entering and developing the land where she held the only registered interest in it, namely a registered lease.
Whether the plaintiff established a sufficiently strong case to justify restraining the defendant's exercise of an admitted, registered right.

Orders

Appeal allowed.
Interim injunction discharged.
Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Restraint of party holding an unchallenged registered interest

A temporary injunction will not be granted to restrain a party from exercising the rights conferred by a registered lease, being the only registered interest held by the parties, where the validity of that lease has not been challenged.

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Restraining exercise of an admitted right

To restrain the exercise of an alleged right, the plaintiff must show substantial grounds for doubting the existence of the right, and a very strong case is required to induce the court to interfere with an admitted right upon an alleged equity.

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Balance of convenience

Where the plaintiff has not attempted to defeat the defendant's registered title, it is unnecessary to consider the balance of convenience, and no injunction can properly be granted.

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Conditions on grant — Time limit and undertaking in damages

When granting a temporary injunction, the court should require the plaintiff to prosecute the case within a reasonable period, limit the injunction to a defined duration, and require the plaintiff to give an undertaking in damages should the claim fail.

Cases cited (1)

HATERS V. AKIRA BRANCH (NO.. 2) (1972) E.A. 347, 350

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.