Wakilii

Baseka Jamilu and Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Application 367 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 149 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 145 of 2023
Decision
Temporary injunction granted pending determination of the main cause

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

The High Court granted a temporary injunction restraining Kampala Capital City Authority from allocating the applicants' market stalls and de-registering them pending determination of the main cause. The court found that the applicants established a prima facie case with likelihood of success, that they would suffer irreparable damage if the injunction were not granted, and invoked its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 33 of the Judicature Act to preserve the status quo.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted pending determination of the main cause

Facts

The applicants are 67 traders in St. Balikuddembe Market who claim ownership of stalls, registered space, and lockup shops. They allege that through lobbying in the 1970s, they were allowed to resettle at the market site and construct temporary structures with the knowledge and consent of the respondent's predecessor. Around 1995, the market was redeveloped with a World Bank loan, and traders contributed funds (UGX 175,800 to 7,000,000) to construct stalls and lockup shops. Each applicant was allocated a stall or lockup shop and registered as a tenant. A lease was subsequently granted to St. Balikuddembe Market Stalls, Space and Lockup Shop Owners Association Limited (SSLOA). In 2021, the respondent took over the market, appointed an interim management committee, and allegedly evicted some applicants. The lease titles to SSLOA were cancelled and re-entered in the respondent's name. The respondent commenced a registration exercise of vendors in 2025, which the applicants contend excludes them and will result in allocation of their properties to third parties. The applicants filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 145 of 2023 seeking declarations and a permanent injunction, and this application seeks a temporary injunction pending determination of that cause.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for temporary injunction is competent.
  2. Whether the applicants have satisfied all grounds to warrant grant of an order of temporary injunction.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is issued against the respondent restraining them from making any allocation and de-registering the applicants until determination of Miscellaneous Cause No. 145 of 2023.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant
For a temporary injunction to issue, the applicant must satisfy three conditions: (i) that the applicant has a prima facie case with a probability of success; (ii) that the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable damage which would not be adequately compensated for in damages; and (iii) if the court is in doubt on the first two points, the court will decide the application on a balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Representative Capacity — Authority to Swear
An affidavit sworn in representative capacity is competent where the deponent has been granted valid written authority by the parties on whose behalf the affidavit is sworn.
Civil Procedure — Misnomer — Error of Counsel — Effect on Litigants
A mistake of counsel in referring to the wrong case number or type shall not be visited on the litigants, and in light of Article 126 of the Constitution, such errors do not render an application incompetent where the intended reference is clear.
Civil Procedure — Irreparable Damage — Meaning and Application
Irreparable injury does not mean the physical impossibility of repairing the injury but that the injury must be a substantial or material one that cannot be adequately compensated for in damages.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of Court — Preservation of Status Quo
The High Court may invoke its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 33 of the Judicature Act to grant a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo and enable full and effectual investigation of triable issues in the main suit.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Baseka Jamilu and Others v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Application 367 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 149 (10 September 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.