Wakilii

Alex Kakembo Lukoda v Commissioner for Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No. 468 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 116 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from pending judicial review application challenging cancellation of certificate of title
Decision
Temporary injunction granted pending determination of the main judicial review application

Observed later treatment

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

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that the applicant satisfied all three conditions for a temporary injunction under the Kawma test: a prima facie case existed as the Commissioner for Land Registration allegedly cancelled the applicant's certificate of title without a hearing in violation of natural justice; irreparable injury would result if the respondent proceeded to issue a special certificate of title enabling eviction and third-party interests; and preservation of the status quo pending judicial review was necessary to allow full adjudication of the cancellation's validity. Temporary injunction granted.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted pending determination of the main judicial review application

Facts

The applicant held a certificate of title for land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 111 Plot 5814 at Mukono. On 7 October 2024, the Acting Commissioner for Land Registration issued an order cancelling the applicant's registration on the certificate of title without conducting a hearing. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 0023 of 2025 seeking judicial review to quash the cancellation order on grounds that it violated the rules of natural justice. The applicant alleged that the respondent, in connivance with other persons, was in the process of issuing a special certificate of title for the suit land. The applicant sought a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo pending determination of the judicial review, contending that without an injunction, third parties might obtain title, forcefully evict the applicant, fence off the land, and erect permanent structures, causing irreparable injury that could not be adequately compensated in damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the application satisfies the conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Temporary injunction granted restraining the Commissioner for Land Registration, officials, agents, and all persons deriving authority from the office from effecting or registering any instruments affecting the applicant's proprietorship over land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 111 Plot 5814 until final determination of Miscellaneous Cause No. 0023 of 2025.
  • Temporary injunction granted restraining any person with interests adverse to the applicant's proprietorship arising from the respondent's order of 7 October 2024 from interfering with the applicant's proprietorship until final determination of the judicial review application.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant — Three-Part Test
For a temporary injunction to issue, the applicant must satisfy three conditions: first, that the applicant has a prima facie case with a probability of success; second, that the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable damage which would not be adequately compensated for in damages; and third, if the court is in doubt on the first two points, the court will decide the application on a balance of convenience, considering whether the inconveniences likely to issue from withholding the injunction would be greater than those likely to arise from granting it.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Triable Issues
In determining whether an applicant has established a prima facie case for a temporary injunction, the court must be satisfied that the claim in the main suit is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is a serious question to be tried. The likelihood of success is the most important consideration in an application for a temporary injunction, and it is incumbent upon the applicant to avail material to the court which would enable it to establish whether or not the applicant has a prima facie case.
Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Cancellation of Title Without Hearing — Prima Facie Case for Judicial Review
An application for judicial review challenging the cancellation of a certificate of title on the ground that the Commissioner for Land Registration cancelled the registration without conducting a hearing in violation of the rules of natural justice raises a prima facie case with triable issues that ought to be adjudicated upon by the court.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Meaning and Application
Irreparable injury does not mean the physical impossibility of repairing the injury but rather that the injury must be a substantial or material one that cannot be adequately compensated for in damages. Where a respondent is in the process of issuing a special certificate of title that may enable eviction, creation of third-party interests, and erection of permanent structures, the applicant stands to suffer irreparable injury if a temporary injunction is not granted.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Preservation of Status Quo — Rationale
It is important for the court and the litigants to be given time and space to exhaustively handle the matters in issue in the main suit with no interference by the respondent, their agents, or any other party claiming under their title to disrupt the status on the ground. Where further action in respect to the suit property is contemplated, the status quo must be halted to avoid inconveniences to both parties as well as third parties.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Alex Kakembo Lukoda v Commissioner for Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No. 468 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 116 (13 April 2026)
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.