Ayebale v Namanda and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1780 of 2022)

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.

Holding

The court dismissed the application to vary a temporary injunction order that prohibited new construction on disputed land. Held that allowing the applicant to construct a retaining wall would change rather than preserve the status quo, defeat the purpose of the restraining order, and render the head suit nugatory. Any variation of a restraining order made under Order 41 Rule 1 CPR must be within the realm of preserving the status quo.

Outcome

Application dismissed with head suit to be expedited

Facts

The applicant sought to vary a temporary injunction order dated November 17, 2020 that had restrained parties from selling or excavating land comprised in Busiro Block 411 Plot 768 at Sisa, and had permitted ongoing construction to proceed but prohibited new foundations or buildings. The November 17, 2020 order itself was a variation of an earlier interim order dated September 2, 2020 that had imposed broader restraints including prohibition on trespassing, selling, constructing, developing, or dealing with the land. The applicant now sought permission to construct a retaining wall on the disputed land. All respondents were served but elected not to file replies.

Issues

1. Whether sufficient cause has been shown to vary the temporary injunction order to permit construction of a retaining wall.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs shall be in the cause.
• Head suit to be fast tracked and disposed of quickly.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 Rule 1

Cases cited (1)

• Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358

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