Wakilii

Ddamulira and 61 Others v Logic Real Eststes and Developers Limited and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Appeal 20 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 258 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Assistant Registrar's ruling dismissing application for temporary injunction
Decision
Appeal dismissed; temporary injunction application remains refused; main suit to proceed

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 dismissed the appeal and upheld the Assistant Registrar's refusal to grant a temporary injunction. The court held that although the appellants established a prima facie case, they failed to prove irreparable injury that could not be compensated in damages, as government is capable of compensating genuine project-affected persons. The balance of convenience favoured the public interest in the multi-million dollar Bukasa Inland Port project over the private interests of the appellants.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; temporary injunction application remains refused; main suit to proceed

Facts

The appellants, 62 individuals claiming to be bibanja owners and bonafide occupants on land registered in the names of the respondents, filed a civil suit and sought a temporary injunction to prevent eviction and development activities on the suit land. They claimed they purchased land from former slum dwellers settled by government and had built homes and businesses. The respondents denied the appellants had any interest in the land and stated there was no threat of eviction. The 5th and 6th respondents (Uganda Land Commission and Attorney General) asserted the land fell within the Bukasa Inland Port project area, a multi-million dollar government infrastructure project, and that all genuine project-affected persons had been identified and compensated. The Assistant Registrar dismissed the application for temporary injunction, finding that while there were triable issues, the appellants had not proved irreparable injury and the balance of convenience favoured the government project. The appellants appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Registrar erred in law and fact when he dismissed the appellant's application for temporary injunction.
  2. Whether the appellants established a prima facie case with probability of success.
  3. Whether the appellants would suffer irreparable injury that could not be adequately compensated in damages.
  4. Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Trial Registrar's orders upheld.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Three-Part Test — Application of All Grounds
Where a court finds that a prima facie case has been established, it does not follow that the court must grant a temporary injunction without considering irreparable injury and balance of convenience. The phrase 'if court is in doubt it would decide application on a balance of convenience' does not mean that where a prima facie case has been established the court does not look at the balance of convenience. All three grounds must be considered.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Adequacy of Damages
An injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated for in damages. Irreparable injury means injury that is substantial or material and cannot be adequately compensated for in damages, not that there is no physical possibility of repairing the injury. Where government is capable of compensating applicants in damages if they are found to have an interest in land, no irreparable injury is established.
Land & Property — Compulsory Acquisition — Government Projects — Compensation
Under Article 26 of the Constitution of Uganda 1995, government is mandated to acquire land compulsorily for public use and Article 26(3) provides for prompt, fair and adequate compensation. Where applicants claim interest in land subject to compulsory acquisition for a government project, government can atone for them in damages for their homes and other developments if they are found to be genuine affected project persons.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Public Interest Projects
Courts of law should be slow to grant an injunction when a public project for the beneficiary interest of the public at large is sought to be delayed or prevented by an order. Damage from such injunction would cause the public at large as well as to government is a paramount fact to be considered. Between conflicting interests, the interest of the public at large and the interest of a few individuals, the interest of the public at large must prevail.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Extension of Time — Inherent Powers
While rules of procedure are made to be obeyed, where strict observance may lead to injustice on any of the parties, the court should be liberal in interpreting the rules in order to do substantial justice. Where an appeal is filed out of time by a few days and no application for extension of time has been made, the court may invoke section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act on the court's inherent powers and validate the appeal.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (17)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdul Nasser Katende (1985 HCS 43)
  • Kazira v Samalie Nassali t/a Kasasa & Co. Advocates (HCA No. 34 of 2014)
  • Attorney General v A P K M Lutaaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited v Eddy Rodrigues (1987 HCR 36)
  • Hannington Wasswa and Another v Maria Ochola and Others (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 1998)
  • Ogbuonye v Kawooya (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2016)
  • China Railway No.3 Engineering Co. Ltd v Muwema & Co. Advocates & Solicitors (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 40 of 2021)
  • Behangana Damaro and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 73 of 2010)
  • Erisa Rainbow Musoke v Ahamada Rezala (1987 HCS 81)
  • Shiv Construction v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1992)
  • Gapco (U) Ltd and Another v Kaweesa Badru and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • American Cynand Co. Ltd versus Ethico Ltd 1975 IWLK 316
  • Capital Shoppers and Others v URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 265 of 2020)
  • Annet Zenbiha v Attorney General (HCCS No. 109 of 2011)
  • Sheema Cooperative Ranching Society and 31 Others v Attorney General (HCCS No. 103 of 2010)
  • Yefusa Guloba and Proscovia Namusobi v R L Jain (Miscellaneous Application No. 334 of 2013)
  • Tumukunde v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 489 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ddamulira_and_61_Others_v_Logic_Real_Eststes_and_Developers_Limited_and_5_Others_(Miscellaneous_Appeal_20_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_258_(30_August_2023)
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.