Wakilii

Alex Kakembo Lukoda v Commissioner for Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No. 469 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 169 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim injunction arising from judicial review proceedings challenging cancellation of certificate of title
Decision
Application for interim injunction dismissed with costs

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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

An interim injunction cannot preserve a status quo that no longer exists. Where the Commissioner for Land Registration has lawfully cancelled a certificate of title following administrative proceedings under section 91 of the Land Act, the applicant ceases to be registered proprietor and there is no proprietary status capable of protection through injunctive relief. An injunction cannot be used to revive a lost status quo or to reverse a completed administrative act. The applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, irreparable injury, or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the order.

Outcome

Application for interim injunction dismissed with costs

Facts

The applicant held a certificate of title for land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 777, Plot 5874 at Mukono. The Commissioner for Land Registration cancelled the certificate of title on 24 October 2024 following administrative proceedings under section 91 of the Land Act. The cancellation was based on findings that the applicant had irregularly converted a leasehold transaction into a transfer of the mailo interest contrary to a lease agreement. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 149 of 2025 for judicial review of the cancellation decision and Miscellaneous Application No. 468 of 2025 for a temporary injunction. Before that application could be heard, the applicant discovered the respondent was in the process of issuing a special certificate of title to Dr. Kamanyiro. The applicant then filed this application for an interim order restraining the respondent from effecting or registering any instruments adversely affecting his proprietorship and restraining any person from entering onto or interfering with his possession of the suit land.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has satisfied all grounds to warrant the grant of an interim order of injunction restraining the respondent pending the disposal of the main application for temporary injunction and the judicial review proceedings.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 469 of 2025 dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Interim Injunctions — Status Quo — Requirement of Existing Legal Status
An interim order cannot issue in a vacuum; there must be a status quo capable of preservation. Where a certificate of title has been lawfully cancelled and the register rectified, the applicant ceases to be registered proprietor and there is no proprietary status in existence for the court to preserve through injunctive relief.
Interim Injunctions — Completed Administrative Acts — Scope of Injunctive Relief
Where the act complained of has already been completed, injunctive relief cannot be used to reverse or suspend its effect; it can only prevent an ongoing or threatened illegality. An injunction cannot be used to revive a lost status quo or to undo a completed administrative act.
Judicial Review — Interim Relief — Balance of Convenience
Courts should refrain from halting statutory functions unless there is a clear breach of law. To restrain the Commissioner for Land Registration in the exercise of statutory powers under sections 88-91 of the Land Act in the absence of clear illegality would amount to unwarranted judicial interference with administrative discretion. The balance of convenience tilts in favour of allowing the respondent to perform its statutory duties rather than halting them on a claim already overtaken by events.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Commodity Trading Industries v Uganda Maize Industries & Anor [2001-2005] HCB 778
  • Kiyimbo Kaggwa v Haji Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Turyomureeba Geoffrey v Makerere University Council & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 807 of 2005)
  • Sauna Cosmetics Uganda Ltd v Commissioner Customs URA and Commissioner General URA (HCMA No. 424 of 2017)
  • Kananura Joseph v Commissioner Land Registration & Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 20 of 2019)
  • Balandemu David v Commissioner Land Registration & Anor (HCMA No. 155 of 2016)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd [2010] UGCA 7
  • Eusingye Kabagambe v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 14 of 2017)

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. 469 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 169 (8 October 2025)
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.