Magezi v Babigumira & Another (Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2021] UGSC 27 · 2021 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application for an interim order of injunction before a single Justice of the Supreme Court, pending determination of a substantive temporary injunction application arising out of a pending civil appeal

Decision

Application for an interim order of injunction declined; costs to abide the outcome of the substantive application

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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

On a single-Justice application for an interim injunction, the Court held that once a competent notice of appeal has been lodged under Rule 72, any party to that appeal may apply for interim relief; it is immaterial which party filed the appeal. Rule 6(2)(b) covers stays of execution, injunctions and stays of proceedings, so an interim injunction need not target execution of an order, and the applicant had locus standi. However, the application failed on the merits: the applicant's evidence of occupation was effectively rebutted, the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, and the status quo had already been altered by the structures erected. An interim order would be granted in vain, so the application was declined.

Facts

The 1st respondent gave the 2nd respondent (the applicant in his other capacity) a power of attorney to use land at Kungu, Kyadondo Block 194 Plot 45, as security for a UGX 100,000,000 loan from Global Trust Bank, surrendering the certificate of title. After default, the Bank auctioned and transferred the land to the applicant. The respondents contested the sale in High Court Civil Suit No. 344 of 2013, which was dismissed; their appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 258 of 2017) was also dismissed. The respondents then lodged Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2020 in the Supreme Court, still pending, without seeking a stay. The applicant alleged the respondents had trespassed and erected illegal structures (a house and toilet) on the land. The respondents averred the 1st respondent had occupied the land since 2006, that the applicant never obtained vacant possession, and that the land bore only planted trees, supported by photographs and a survey report.

Issues

Whether an applicant has locus standi to apply for an interim order of injunction under Rule 6(2)(b) where the pending appeal was lodged by the opposing party and not by the applicant.
Whether an interim order of injunction under Rule 6(2)(b) can only be granted against execution of a court order.
Whether the applicant established a serious or imminent threat justifying the grant of an interim order of injunction to preserve the status quo of the suit land.

Orders

Application declined.
Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the substantive application.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Locus Standi to Apply Where Appeal Lodged by Opposing Party

Where a competent notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with Rule 72, any party to the appeal may apply for interim relief under Rule 6(2)(b); it is immaterial which party lodged the appeal, since requiring the non-appealing party to file its own appeal would cause multiplicity of suits and an absurdity.

Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Conditions for Grant

Three conditions must be satisfied to justify the grant of an interim order: a competent notice of appeal lodged under Rule 72, a pending substantive application, and a serious or imminent threat to do the act complained of before the substantive application is heard.

Civil Procedure — Interim Injunction — Scope of Rule 6(2)(b)

Rule 6(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules covers stays of execution, injunctions and stays of proceedings; an interim order of injunction may therefore restrain conduct such as trespass and need not be directed against execution of a court order.

Civil Procedure — Interim Injunction — Refusal Where Status Quo Already Altered

An interim injunction to preserve the status quo will not be granted where, on the applicant's own evidence, the status quo has already been altered and the acts complained of already committed; courts do not grant orders in vain.

Legislation cited (3)

Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.2(2)
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.6(2)(b)
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions SI 13-11 r.72

Cases cited (6)

Alcon International Ltd v The New Vision Publishing Co. Ltd & Another (Civil Application No. 4 of 2010)
Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tojdin Hussein & 2 Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
Lukwago Erias v Attorney General & Another (Civil Application No. 6 of 2014)
Zubeda Mohamed & Another v Laila Kaka Wallia & Others (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
Crane Bank Ltd (In Receivership) v Sudhir Ruparelia & Another (Civil Application No. 33 of 2020)
Mohammed Mohamed Hamid v Roko Construction Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2017)

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.