Wakilii

Babumba & 2 Ors v Bunju (Civil Suit No. 679 90)

High Court · [1990] UGHC 15 · 1990 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for temporary injunction in ongoing civil suit concerning breach of lease agreement
Decision
Temporary injunction granted maintaining plaintiffs in occupation of leased premises pending determination of main suit concerning alleged breach of lease agreement

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

Court granted temporary injunction restraining defendant from evicting plaintiffs from leased premises pending determination of main suit. Court held that grant of temporary injunction would not prematurely determine the suit where breach of lease remained to be tried. Applicants established prima facie case showing unexpired lease, no breach by tenants, and illegal re-entry attempt by landlord. Court found irreparable injury would result from eviction given scarcity of accommodation in Kampala. Balance of convenience favoured maintaining status quo. Court rejected affidavit sworn by counsel for defendant on contentious matters as violating professional conduct rules.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted maintaining plaintiffs in occupation of leased premises pending determination of main suit concerning alleged breach of lease agreement

Facts

Plaintiffs entered into a 49-year lease agreement in 1955 with Szekeri Bunju for residential premises at Plot 113, Kibuga Block 8, Rubaga Road, Mengo at annual rent of 400 shillings. The lessor died and letters of administration were granted to his widow, the defendant, in 1985. Dispute arose between parties over alleged breach of lease by plaintiffs regarding user of property and non-payment of rent. Defendant attempted forceful re-entry before lease expiry. Plaintiffs resisted by employing armed guards who ejected defendant and her property from the premises. Plaintiffs filed main suit alleging breach by defendant and claiming permanent injunction for duration of lease. While main suit pending, plaintiffs filed interlocutory application for temporary injunction to maintain status quo.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for temporary injunction is properly before the court where the main suit contains a prayer for permanent injunction.
  2. Whether the applicants have shown a prima facie case with probability of success in the main suit.
  3. Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable injury if the temporary injunction is not granted.
  4. Whether an advocate who swears an affidavit on contentious matters can properly continue to act as counsel in the same matter.

Orders

  • Application for temporary injunction allowed.
  • Temporary injunction granted restraining defendant, her servants or agents from breaking into, entering or evicting the plaintiffs from the premises on Kibuga Block 8 Plot No. 113 Rubaga Road at Mengo.
  • Affidavit sworn by Sam Bitangaro rejected.
  • Respondent to pay costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant
For a temporary injunction to be granted, the applicant must show: (1) a prima facie case with probability of success in the main suit, meaning there is a triable issue; (2) that unless the injunction is granted the applicant would suffer irreparable injury which would not be adequately compensated by damages; and (3) if the court is in doubt as to irreparable injury, the application is decided on the balance of convenience between the parties.
Evidence — Affidavits — Advocate Acting as Both Counsel and Witness
An advocate may not act both as counsel and as a witness in the same case. This prohibition extends to swearing affidavits on contentious matters in a case where the advocate appears as counsel. The exception applies only to formal or non-contentious matters.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Relationship to Permanent Injunction Prayer
A temporary injunction may be granted even where the main suit contains a prayer for permanent injunction, provided that the grant of the temporary injunction will not decide the whole suit. Whether a grant would prematurely dispose of the case depends on the facts of each case.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case
At the interlocutory stage for temporary injunction, the court is concerned with whether the claim is not frivolous or vexatious but that there is a serious question to be tried. The court must be satisfied from the limited evidence available that if the matter went to trial with the evidence available, the plaintiff would be entitled to judgment.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Scarcity of Accommodation
Loss of accommodation in circumstances where accommodation is scarce constitutes irreparable injury for purposes of granting a temporary injunction, as no amount of damages can adequately compensate that loss.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.37 r.1(a)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.37 r.2(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.37 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.37 r.9
  • Judicature Act 11/67 s.36(1)
  • Judicature Act 11/67 s.36(3)
  • Registration of Title Act
  • Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations 1977 Regulation 8

Cases cited (14)

  • Yunus Ismail t/a Bombo City Store v Alex Kamukamu and Others (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1987)
  • R v Secretary for State for India (1941) 2 ALL ER 546
  • Jafferah & Anor. vs. Borrison and Anor. (1971) EA 546
  • Gandeshal vs Killing Coffee Estate LTD (1969) EA 299
  • Sergeant v. Patel (1949) 16 EACA 63
  • Giela v. Cosman Brown Co. LTD (1973) EA 358
  • Noor Mohamed Jan Mohamed v. Madvani (1953) 20 EACA 8
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v. Katende (1985) HCB 44
  • Buikwe Estate Coffee Works LTD vs Lutabi and Anor. HCB 44/61
  • EA Industries v Trufoods LTD (1972) EA 420
  • Re: Ikokoma Saw Mills Co. (1976) HCB 50
  • Patel v Lukwago (1984) HCB 44
  • Eva Mulira v Henry Karamuzi (High Court Civil Suit No. 114 of 1987)
  • Buikwe Estate Coffee Works Ltd and 2 Others vs Lutabi (1962) EA 328

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Babumba & 2 Ors v Bunju (Civil Suit No. 679_90) [1990] UGHC 15 (20 September 1990)
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.