Wakilii

Rukikaire v INCAFEX Ltd (Civil Application 11 of 2015)

Supreme Court · [2015] UGSC 11 · 2015 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to a single Justice of the Supreme Court for an interim injunction, arising from a pending application for a temporary injunction (Civil Application No. 10 of 2015) and Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2015.
Decision
Application for an interim injunction dismissed with costs to the respondent

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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

A single Justice of the Supreme Court dismissed the application for an interim injunction. The court reaffirmed that an interim order requires a pending substantive application, a lodged notice of appeal, and evidence of a serious threat that the act complained of will be done before the substantive application is heard. While a notice of appeal, the appeal, and a substantive injunction application were all pending, the applicant produced no evidence that the alleged government compensation of over Shs. 13 billion existed, was being processed, or was about to be paid and dissipated. The respondent's affidavit controverted these claims and they remained speculative. Lacking evidence of a serious threat, the court had no basis to exercise its discretion and disallowed the application with costs.

Facts

The applicant claimed to hold 450 ordinary shares (45%) in the respondent company, a claim the respondent's managing director refused to recognise. The applicant succeeded in the High Court (Companies Cause No. 3 of 2004), but the respondent's appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed in December 2014. The applicant filed a notice of appeal, then Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2015 and Civil Application No. 10 of 2015 for a temporary injunction in the Supreme Court. By the present application he sought an interim injunction restraining the respondent from accessing or receiving compensation said to be due from the Government of Uganda, in excess of Shs. 13 billion, for ranches confiscated under a Ranch Restructuring Scheme. He feared the money would be siphoned off, leaving an empty company. The respondent's company secretary deponed that there was no government policy, court order, agreement, pending claim, or valuation supporting any such compensation, and that the respondent had not applied for any payment.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established a serious threat of execution (the payment and dissipation of the alleged government compensation) sufficient to warrant the grant of an interim injunction pending the hearing of the substantive application for a temporary injunction and the appeal.

Orders

  • Application disallowed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Injunctions — Conditions for Grant
An interim injunction or interim order of stay will issue only where a substantive application is pending, a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with the Rules, and there is a serious threat that the act complained of will be done before the substantive application is heard and determined.
Civil Procedure — Interim Injunctions — Burden of Proof — Serious Threat of Execution
The applicant must establish the serious threat of execution by evidence; a speculative or unsupported assertion of an impending act, controverted by the opposing affidavit, provides no basis upon which the court can exercise its discretion to grant the order.
Civil Procedure — Interim Injunctions — Purpose — Preservation of Status Quo
The grant of an interim order is intended to preserve the status quo and protect the right of appeal so that the main issues may be determined by the full Court; on an interim application the court need not pre-empt consideration of matters reserved for the substantive application.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.2
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.72

Cases cited (6)

  • Alcon International v New Vision Newspaper (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2010)
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkundiye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2015)
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and 3 Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd (supra)
  • Yakobo Sekungu and Others v Crensio Mukasa (Civil Application No. 5 of 2013)
  • Guiliano Gariggio v Claudio Casadio (Civil Application No. 3 of 2013)
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.