Wakilii

Faridah Nanfuka and Another v Isaac Kasule Zacharia and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1711 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 180 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for certificate of urgency to hear a review application during court vacation
Decision
Application for certificate of urgency dismissed; underlying review application (HCMA No. 1709 of 2025) to be heard after court vacation

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 dismissed the application for a certificate of urgency, holding that the applicants failed to disclose exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency. The allegation that respondents were collecting rent was not exceptional as such collections are recoverable, and the claim that suit property might be disposed of was unsupported by evidence and amounted to speculation.

Outcome

Application for certificate of urgency dismissed; underlying review application (HCMA No. 1709 of 2025) to be heard after court vacation

Facts

The applicants sought a certificate of urgency to have HCMA No. 1709 of 2025 heard during court vacation. HCMA No. 1709 of 2025 sought review and reinstatement of HCCS No. 0735 of 2024, which had been dismissed on 19 June 2025. The dismissal nullified interim and temporary injunction orders that had restrained the respondents from effecting changes in the register and maintaining the status quo over land comprised in Block 38 Plots 149 and 154 at Makerere Wandegeya, Kampala District. The applicants alleged that the respondents were unlawfully collecting rent from business premises on the suit land and that the property was at high risk of disposal.

Issues

  1. Whether a certificate of urgency should be issued to hear HCMA No. 1709 of 2025 during the current court vacation.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Certificate of Urgency — Test for Granting
A certificate of urgency will not be granted as a matter of course. To merit consideration, the application must disclose exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency and should not involve a self-created urgency by the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Certificate of Urgency — Recoverable Losses Not Exceptional
The fact that respondents are collecting rental dues on estate properties at the expense of beneficiaries does not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting a certificate of urgency, as such collections are recoverable.
Civil Procedure — Certificate of Urgency — Unsupported Allegations Insufficient
An allegation that suit property may be disposed of by respondents, unsupported by evidence of actual intention to do so, is insufficient to establish exceptional circumstances for a certificate of urgency.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.89
  • Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules SI No. 13-20 s.37
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3

Cases cited (1)

  • Edge Technologies Limited v KCB Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 310 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Faridah_Nanfuka_and_Another_v_Isaac_Kasule_Zacharia_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1711_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_180_(11_August_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.