Departed Asains Property Custodian Board v Balikowa and Another (Miscellaneous Application 61 of 2023)
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 court held that a miscellaneous application arising from another miscellaneous application constitutes a suit within the meaning of Section 2(x) of the Civil Procedure Act, and therefore an application for temporary injunction can be maintained even where the original civil suit has been struck off, provided it arises from a pending miscellaneous application. The court granted the temporary injunction, finding that the applicant had established a prima facie case, would suffer irreparable damage if the injunction were not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured preservation of the status quo.
Outcome
Temporary injunction granted restraining respondents from interfering with the suit property pending determination of Miscellaneous Application No. 334 of 2022
Facts
The Applicant filed Civil Suit No. 50 of 2022 challenging the transfer of Plot 54 Main Street LRV 154 Folio 17 at Butembe Jinja Municipality to the Respondents on grounds of fraud. The Respondents filed Miscellaneous Application No. 265 of 2022 for security for costs, which was granted by the Deputy Registrar, ordering the Applicant to deposit UGX 70,000,000 within 30 days. The Applicant failed to comply and Civil Suit No. 50 of 2022 was struck off on 5 January 2023. The Applicant had filed Miscellaneous Application No. 334 of 2022 on 7 December 2022 to set aside the security for costs order. The Applicant then filed the present application (Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2023) for a temporary injunction to restrain the Respondents from interfering with the suit property. The Applicant claimed that the property had been allocated to Mr. Hamya Wilson Mulongo who was in possession and paying rent, but the Respondents were demolishing structures and attempting eviction. The Respondents contended they were the registered proprietors in possession.
Issues
- Whether the application for temporary injunction is competent when the underlying civil suit has been struck off.
- Whether a miscellaneous application arising from another miscellaneous application constitutes a 'suit' within the meaning of Section 2(x) of the Civil Procedure Act.
- Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
- Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable damage if the temporary injunction is not granted.
- Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of a temporary injunction.
Orders
- A temporary injunction is hereby granted restraining the Respondents and their agents/servants of Plot 54 Main Street LRV 154 Folio 17 at Butembe Jinja (suit property) from sale, mortgage, transfer, alien, dispose, eviction, demolition, threats, intimidation or other form of interference on the suit property until final disposal of M.A. 334 of 2022 or until further orders of court.
- A temporary injunction be issued to preserve the suit property and maintain the status-quo pending the determination of Miscellaneous Application No. 334 of 2022 or until any further orders of this Court.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.64(b)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.64(e)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.2(x)
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 O.41 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 O.41 r.1(a)
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 O.41 r.1(b)
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 O.41 r.1(c)
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 O.41 r.9
- Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 O.50 r.8
Cases cited (8)
- Kiyimba Kaggwa v Katende (1985 HCB 43)
- Japan Auto World Limited v Magala & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 73 of 2016)
- Matco Stores Ltd & 2 Ors v Muhwezi (Court of Appeal No. 9 of 2012)
- Ndema Emanzi Rukandema v Mubiru Henry (Miscellaneous Application No. 225 of 2013)
- Godfrey Sekitoleko and four others v Seezi Peter Mutabazi and two others (Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2011)
- City Council of Kampala v Donozio Musisi Sekyaya (Civil Application No. 3 of 2000)
- Rashida Abdul Hanali v Suleiman Adrisi (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 11 of 2017)
- Kiyimba Kaggwa v Katende (1985 HCB 43)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.