Wakilii

Kalya & 2 Others v Ikagobya (Civil Application 31 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2021] UGSC 25 · 2021 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single justice of the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction pending the ruling in a related Supreme Court civil application
Decision
Application for a temporary injunction dismissed; costs in the cause

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full 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

On a single justice's consideration of an application for a temporary injunction in a land dispute, the court held that the application was an interlocutory matter to which section 8(1) of the Judicature Act and rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules applied, rejecting the respondent's jurisdiction objections. On the merits, the court held that the status quo had already been altered, so an injunction would be rendered nugatory, and that the applicants had not shown irreparable damage because the complained-of activities (cultivation, marram extraction, renting out) could be adequately compensated in damages. The application was disallowed, with costs in the cause.

Facts

The applicants and the respondent were in a long-running dispute over land at Bukorakole, Buheesi Town Council, Bunyangabu District. In Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2014 the Supreme Court restored the trial court's orders in favour of the respondent, and in Civil Application No. 28 of 2015 the court, by majority, maintained that decision while clarifying that the respondent held a kibanja interest and that the applicants' registered titles remained unaffected. The applicants then filed Civil Application No. 1 of 2020, which was pending ruling. The applicants, as registered proprietors, alleged the respondent was continuing to build, construct a road, plant trees, rent out land for marram extraction and cultivation, and permit construction of a water tank, thereby altering the status quo. They sought a temporary injunction to restrain those activities pending the ruling in Civil Application No. 1 of 2020. The respondent opposed, asserting over 40 years of quiet possession and contending the activities pre-dated the application.

Issues

  1. Whether a single justice of the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application, and whether rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules and section 8(1) of the Judicature Act applied to it.
  2. Whether the applicants had satisfied the conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo pending the ruling in Civil Application No. 1 of 2020.

Orders

  • Application for a temporary injunction disallowed.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Single Justice Jurisdiction — Interlocutory Applications under Judicature Act s.8(1)
An application that arises out of a pending application already filed and heard in the Supreme Court is an interlocutory matter within the meaning of section 8(1) of the Judicature Act, and a single justice may exercise the court's powers in respect of it.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of the Court — Supreme Court Rules r.2(2)
Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules confers a wide discretion to make such orders as may be necessary to achieve the ends of justice or to prevent an abuse of process, and applies to applications properly before the court.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Preservation of the Status Quo
The primary purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the determination of the main issue; where the status quo has already been altered, granting the injunction would be rendered nugatory and would defeat the purpose of the remedy.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Damage
Irreparable damage means injury that cannot be adequately compensated in damages; where the complained-of activities such as cultivation, marram extraction and renting out of land can be atoned for in damages, the applicant has not established irreparable damage and the injunction will be refused.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.1(a)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.2(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.42
  • Supreme Court Rules r.50(2)(b)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature Act Cap. 3 s.8(1)
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.3(1)

Cases cited (10)

  • Orient Bank Ltd v Fredrick Zabwe & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2007)
  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • Lukwago Erias v Attorney General & KCCA (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2014)
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2018)
  • Kiyimba-Kaggwa Vs. Hajji Abdu Nasser Katende 1985 HCB 43
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo & 3 Ors v Attorney General & Ors (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
  • American Cyanamid Co. Vs. Ethicon Ltd (1975) AC 396
  • Robert Kavuma v M/s Hotel International (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
  • Yakobo Sekungu & Ors v Crensio Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2013)
  • Guiliano Gariggio v Claudio Casadio (Civil Appeal 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.