Wakilii

Fiona Nakku v National Identification and Registration Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 554 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 154 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary mandatory injunction and temporary injunction arising from Judicial Review Miscellaneous Cause No. 27 of 2025
Decision
Application for temporary mandatory injunction and temporary injunction dismissed

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 mandatory injunction seeking to compel the National Resistance Movement to maintain the applicant as its flag bearer for National Female Youth Member of Parliament and to restrain NIRA from altering her date of birth. While the court found a prima facie case, it held that the respondent was incapable of complying with the mandatory injunction because the applicant had already been denominated and the upcoming exercise was an election, not a nomination. The court concluded that restoring the status quo was impractical and that any damage could be compensated by an award of damages.

Outcome

Application for temporary mandatory injunction and temporary injunction dismissed

Facts

The applicant was nominated as the NRM flag bearer for the National Female Youth Member of Parliament position. The 2nd Respondent (NRM) received petitions alleging the applicant was ineligible due to her age being above 30 years. The NRM Electoral Commission summoned the applicant and petitioners for a hearing, then wrote to NIRA (1st Respondent) requesting confirmation of the applicant's age. NIRA responded that the applicant did not qualify for youth positions as her age was above 30 years. On 18th August 2025, the applicant was served with a letter denominating her. NIRA had received a complaint from ABNO Advocates regarding an irregular change of the applicant's date of birth and, after review, reverted her date of birth to 20th December 1994 from 20th July 1997. The applicant filed a judicial review application and sought temporary injunctions to maintain her nomination and prevent alteration of her biodata.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has satisfied all grounds to warrant the grant of a Temporary Mandatory Injunction Order against the 2nd Respondent to maintain the Applicant as the NRM Flag bearer aspirant for the position of the National Female Youth Member of Parliament.
  2. Whether the Applicant has satisfied all grounds to warrant the grant of a Temporary Injunction against the 1st Respondent, its agents, servants and any third party from altering the Applicant's date of birth bio data in the National Information Register.

Orders

  • Application disallowed.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Mandatory Injunctions — Conditions for Grant — Compliance Capability
A temporary mandatory injunction will only be granted where the respondent is capable of complying with the court's order. The court must assess whether the order is feasible and will not impose an unjust burden. Where the status quo has already changed and restoration is impractical, a mandatory injunction will not issue.
Temporary Mandatory Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Triable Issues
For a temporary mandatory injunction, the court must be satisfied that the claim in the main suit is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is a serious question to be tried. The likelihood of success is the most important consideration, and the applicant must avail material to enable the court to establish whether a prima facie case exists.
Temporary Mandatory Injunctions — Irreparable Damage — Adequacy of Damages
Irreparable injury does not mean the physical impossibility of repairing the injury but that the injury must be substantial or material and cannot be adequately compensated for in damages. Where the respondents are legal entities with capacity to compensate, any damage that may accrue can be atoned by an award of damages.
Temporary Mandatory Injunctions — Nature and Purpose — Discretionary Remedy
A temporary mandatory injunction is a powerful remedy that the court grants with caution. It requires a high degree of assurance that the applicant will succeed in the main cause, that damages will not be an adequate remedy, and that the balance of justice and convenience favours the applicant. The decision to grant or refuse such an injunction is at the discretion of the judge based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Fiona Nakku v National Identification and Registration Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 554 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 154 (18 September 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.