Wakilii

Diri Jero and Others v Bako Marita (Miscellaneous Application 41 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 839 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction pending appeal from lower court judgment in land dispute
Decision
Application for temporary injunction dismissed; parties to await determination of pending High Court Appeal No. 51 of 2024

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 an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from allegedly destroying suit land pending appeal. The court held that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case of irreparable harm, as their claims of land destruction were speculative and unsupported by credible evidence. The applicants did not articulate the nature or extent of substantial loss, and the single photograph tendered lacked metadata verifying its source. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who remained in peaceable possession using the land for subsistence farming.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed; parties to await determination of pending High Court Appeal No. 51 of 2024

Facts

The applicants had won Land Civil Suit No. 15 of 2021 against the respondent in the lower court. The respondent filed High Court Appeal No. 51 of 2024. Pending determination of that appeal, the applicants sought a temporary injunction alleging that the respondent and her agents were cutting trees, destroying soil, laying bricks, and alienating the suit land. The respondent denied these allegations, stating that it was the applicants' agent who was cutting and selling firewood from mango trees, and that she herself used part of the land only for subsistence farming. The applicants tendered one photograph of a cut tree but without metadata showing date, time, or location.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have established grounds for a temporary injunction.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs to abide by the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Prima Facie Case — Burden of Proof
For a temporary injunction to be granted, the applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success, that irreparable damage is likely if the injunction is denied, and that the balance of convenience favours the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Irreparable Harm — Pleading and Proof — Substantial Loss
It is not sufficient for an applicant to merely repeat the words of the statute and state that substantial loss will result; the kind of loss must be specified, details must be given, and the court must be satisfied that such loss will really ensue. Vague and generalised assertions of substantial loss do not discharge the evidential burden.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Photographs — Authentication and Weight
Where a party tenders a photograph in support of an application, the absence of metadata showing date, time, and location undermines its evidential weight. Modern technology enables verification of such details, and failure to produce them may lead the court to conclude that the photograph could have been taken from anywhere and does not prove the fact in issue.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Balance of Convenience — Status Quo
The balance of convenience lies with the party who will suffer more if the remedy is denied. Where a respondent remains in peaceable possession of land using it for subsistence farming and the applicant has failed to establish credible evidence of ongoing harm, the balance of convenience does not favour granting an injunction. Status quo refers to the last actual peaceable uncontested state preceding the application.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Robert Kavuma v M/s Hotel International (SCCA No. 8 of 1990)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji A N Katende (1985) HCB 43
  • Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (HCT-00-CC-MA-086-2006)
  • Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v Cogecot Cotton Co SA (1995-1998) 1 EA 312
  • Bansidhav v Pribku Dayal AIR 41 1954
  • Lloyd v Symonds and Others [1998] EWCA Civ 511
  • Haruna Enterprises (U) Limited and Another v Diamond Trust Bank (U) Ltd and Another (CACA No. 1271 of 2023)
  • Humphrey Nzeyi v Bank of Uganda and Another (Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Diri Jero and Others v Bako Marita (Miscellaneous Application 41 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 839 (27 July 2026)
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.