Wakilii

Magezi v Babigumira and Another (Election Petition Appeal Miscellaneous Application 6 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2021] UGSC 75 · 2021 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Supreme Court for an interim order of injunction, pending determination of a temporary-injunction application (Misc. App. No. 5 of 2021) arising out of a pending appeal (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2020)
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.

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

On an application for an interim injunction over disputed land pending a temporary-injunction application, the single Justice held that Rule 6(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules does not specify which party must have lodged the notice of appeal; so long as a competent appeal is on record, any party may apply for interim relief, and the applicant therefore had locus standi. However, the application failed on the merits: the applicant's evidence of occupation was credibly rebutted, the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, and the applicant's own averments showed the status quo had already been altered, so an injunction would serve no purpose. The application was declined.

Facts

The 1st respondent, then registered proprietor of land at Kyadondo Block 194 Plot 45 at Kungu, gave the 2nd respondent a power of attorney to use the land as security for a UGX 100,000,000 loan from Global Trust Bank, surrendering the certificate of title. On default, the Bank sold the land by public auction and transferred it to the applicant. The respondents challenged 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. They then lodged Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2020 in the Supreme Court, which remained pending. The applicant sought an interim injunction restraining the respondents from entering or trespassing on the land, alleging they had erected illegal structures, pending his application for a temporary injunction (Misc. App. No. 5 of 2021). The respondents adduced evidence, including planted trees and a survey report, that the 1st respondent had occupied the land since 2006.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had locus standi to apply for an interim injunction under Rule 6(2)(b) where the notice of appeal had been lodged by the opposing party rather than by the applicant.
  2. Whether there was a serious or imminent threat of trespass or alteration of the status quo justifying the grant of an interim order of injunction.

Orders

  • Application for an interim order of injunction declined.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the substantive application.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Locus Standi — Identity of the Party Lodging the Notice of Appeal under Rule 6(2)(b)
Rule 6(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Rules does not specify which party must have lodged the notice of appeal; provided a competent appeal is on record, any party may, in the interests of justice, apply for interim relief, and it does not matter which party filed the appeal.
Civil Procedure — Interim Injunction — Conditions for Grant
Three conditions must be satisfied to justify the grant of an interim order: a competent notice of appeal lodged in accordance with Rule 72, a pending substantive application, and a serious threat of execution or of the act complained of before the substantive application is heard.
Civil Procedure — Interim Injunction — Preservation of Status Quo — Application Overtaken by Events
An interim injunction will not be granted to preserve a status quo that the applicant's own evidence shows has already been altered, since courts do not grant orders in vain and the question of an imminent threat does not arise where the acts complained of have already been committed.

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 Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd and Another (Civil Application No. 1 of 2010)
  • Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tojdin Hussein and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)
  • Lukwago Erias v Attorney General and Another (Civil Application No. 6 of 2014)
  • Zubeda Mohamed and Another v Laila Kaka Wallia and Others (Civil Reference No. 7 of 2016)
  • Crane Bank Ltd (In Receivership) v Sudhir Ruparelia and 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.