Wakilii

Galaige Joy v Ingabire Judith Nina and Another (Miscellaneous Application 2389 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 220 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from pending civil suit concerning disputed land ownership
Decision
Application for 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 court dismissed the application for a temporary injunction. The applicant failed to prove that the suit property was in danger of being wasted or damaged, as construction per se does not amount to waste or damage. The applicant failed to establish irreparable loss that could not be compensated by damages, particularly since a caveat had been lodged protecting her interest and any construction could be demolished. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent who held the certificate of title, was in possession, and had fenced the property.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed

Facts

The applicant claimed she purchased land at Seeta-Buwate (Block 189, Plot 986) from Kikambi Gerald for UGX 55,000,000 and had it transferred to her name on 24 February 2020. In October 2023, through her attorney Edith Kafuko, she discovered the 1st respondent had erected a signpost on the land and the title had been transferred to the 1st respondent without her knowledge. The applicant denied selling the land and lodged a caveat. She filed Civil Suit No. 839 of 2024 seeking declarations of ownership and other relief. The 1st respondent claimed she purchased the land from the applicant on 16 September 2023, was registered as proprietor on 27 September 2023, took vacant possession, erected a barbed wire fence, placed a signpost, and brought construction materials to the site.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has sufficient grounds for a temporary injunction order.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant — Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Loss, Balance of Convenience
For a temporary injunction to be granted, the applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success; the injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages; and if the court is in doubt, it will decide on the balance of convenience.
Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo — Definition and Application in Land Disputes
Status quo means the existing state of affairs before a given particular point in time. In land cases, status quo is purely a question of fact, and the relevant consideration is the point in time at which the acts complained of occurred. The status quo to be maintained is that point in time just before the applicant discovered the respondent's activities on the suit land.
Temporary Injunctions — Construction on Disputed Land — Whether Construction Constitutes Waste or Damage
Construction per se does not amount to damage or wastage of land. An applicant seeking a temporary injunction must prove that the suit property is in danger of being wasted or damaged, and mere construction activity does not satisfy this requirement.
Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Loss — Effect of Lodged Caveat
Where an applicant has lodged a caveat protecting her interest in land and any construction on the land can be demolished, the applicant has not established irreparable loss that cannot be adequately compensated by damages. The applicant must adduce evidence of the extent of damage and whether the respondent will be unable to compensate for it.
Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Possession and Development
The balance of convenience lies with the party who will suffer more if not granted the relief sought. Where the respondent is in possession of the certificate of title, has fenced the property, and has brought construction materials, while the applicant has not proved possession and has no development on the land, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondent.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Katende (Civil Suit No. 2109 of 1984)
  • Makerere University v Omumbejja Namusisi Farida Naluwembe Namirembe Bwanga (HCMA No. 658 of 2013)
  • J. Mubiru v Uganda Land Commission (HCCS No. 745 of 1990)
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon [1975] ALLER 504

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Galaige_Joy_v_Ingabire_Judith_Nina_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_2389_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_220_(29_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.