Wakilii

Ask Without Shame Limited v Nabembezi (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 153 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 32 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for mandatory injunction arising from pending civil suit for breach of director duties
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to abide the outcome of the main suit

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

Application for mandatory injunction dismissed. The Court held that granting the application would substantially grant the reliefs sought in the main suit and create a new state of affairs rather than restore the status quo. A mandatory injunction should restore the status quo, not establish a new state of things, and should not effectively decide the main suit without trial.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to abide the outcome of the main suit

Facts

The Applicant company filed Civil Suit No. 354 of 2019 on 16 August 2019 against the Respondent, a director, alleging breach of duty in withdrawing company funds. The Applicant also filed applications for interim and temporary injunctions to restrain further withdrawals. On 21 August 2019, one day before service of the suit and applications on the Respondent's lawyers, the Respondent withdrew USD 50,000 and UGX 20,000,000 from the Applicant's bank account. The Applicant brought this application over a year later seeking a mandatory injunction to compel the Respondent to deposit the withdrawn sums with the Court, arguing the withdrawal was intended to render the suit nugatory. The Respondent contended the withdrawal was part of her employment duties and she was unaware of the suit at the time.

Issues

  1. Whether a mandatory injunction should issue against the Respondent ordering her to deposit the withdrawn monies with the Court.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Mandatory Injunctions — Principles for Grant — Restoration of Status Quo
A mandatory injunction is granted to restore the status quo and not to establish a new state of things; courts should be slow to grant such relief where it would substantially grant the relief claimed in the main suit.
Civil Procedure — Mandatory Injunctions — Standard of Proof
Before granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction, the court must feel a higher degree of assurance that at trial it would appear the injunction had rightly been granted, being a different and higher standard than required for a prohibitory injunction.
Civil Procedure — Mandatory Injunctions — Special Circumstances Required
A mandatory injunction ought not to be granted on an interlocutory application in the absence of special circumstances, and is appropriate only in clear cases where the matter ought to be decided at once, or where the injunction is directed at a simple and summary act, or where the defendant attempted to steal a march on the plaintiff.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Xing Wang Co. Ltd v Zheng Zuping (Miscellaneous Cause No. 1 of 2018)
  • [1984] 1 All ER 225
  • [2002] EKLR
  • Themi Nakibuuka Ssebalu v Peter Ssematimba and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 52 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ask Without Shame Limited v Nabembezi (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 153 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 32 (21 May 2021)
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.