Wakilii

Economy Publications (U) Limited & Another v Madhvani & 7 Others (Civil Suit 609 of 1992)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 64 · 1992 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction under Order 37 Rules 2 and 9 in the context of a landlord-tenant dispute
Decision
Application dismissed with costs; interim injunction lifted

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 application for a temporary injunction restraining eviction from premises at Plot 20 Jinja Road. The Court held that the applicants had failed to establish a prima facie case with probability of success, as the registered proprietor of the property was the sixth respondent (Registered Trustees of Muljibhai Madhvani Foundation), not the eighth respondent with whom applicants claimed a tenancy agreement. The Court further held that the pending Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 1991 seeking substantially similar remedies barred prosecution of the present suit under Civil Procedure Act s.6.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs; interim injunction lifted

Facts

Economy Publications (U) Ltd and Mugisha Enterprises (U) Ltd were tenants occupying premises at Plot 20 Jinja Road, Kampala. The property was registered in the name of the Registered Trustees of Muljibhai Madhvani Foundation (sixth respondent) from 22 July 1966. The property had been expropriated but was returned to the sixth respondent by the Minister of Finance on 4 June 1991 under the Expropriated Properties Act. The sixth respondent's lawyers wrote to all tenants in June and December 1991 requiring them to enter into new tenancy agreements or vacate. The applicants instituted Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 1991 (interpleader proceedings) in October 1991 seeking directions on payment of rent, which remained undisposed. In January 1992, the applicants entered into a tenancy agreement with the eighth respondent (Board of Trustees of Uganda Independence Scholarship Fund), despite being aware that the sixth respondent was the registered proprietor. In September 1992, the applicants filed the present suit seeking a temporary injunction to restrain eviction.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction.
  2. Whether the applicants had a prima facie case with a probability of success.
  3. Whether the pending Miscellaneous Application No. 74 of 1991 barred prosecution of the present suit under Civil Procedure Act s.6.

Orders

  • Application for temporary injunction dismissed.
  • Interim order granted by Acting Deputy Registrar on 1 October 1992 set aside, discharged, and dissolved.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondents.
  • Informal application for stay of execution under Civil Procedure Act s.101 rejected.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant — Prima Facie Case
For a temporary injunction to issue, the court must be satisfied that the applicant has a prima facie case with a probability of success, and that the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable damage which would not be adequately compensated in damages.
Temporary Injunctions — Order 37 Rule 2(1) — Scope of Application
Order 37 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules permits a temporary injunction to restrain a defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury. Where there is no contract between the parties, the rule does not apply and cannot protect an applicant seeking to restrain the registered proprietor of property from enforcing proprietary rights.
Lis Pendens — Section 6 Civil Procedure Act — Bar to Subsequent Suit
Where a prior application seeking substantially similar remedies is pending undisposed, Civil Procedure Act s.6 bars prosecution of a subsequent suit raising the same issues between substantially the same parties.
Landlord and Tenant — Tenancy with Non-Proprietor — Effect
A tenant who enters into a tenancy agreement with a party who is not the registered proprietor of the property, despite having knowledge that another party is the registered proprietor, cannot claim a valid tenancy enforceable against the registered proprietor.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kaviima v Hotel International (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1994)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Economy Publications (U) Limited & Another v Madhvani & 7 Others (Civil Suit 609 of 1992) [1992] UGHC 64 (28 October 1992)
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.