Wakilii

GAPCO Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa & Anor (Ma No. 259 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGHCLD 47 · 2013 Application Granted — Injunction Issued AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from Civil Suit No. 133 of 2013
Decision
Temporary injunction granted pending hearing of the main suit

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 12 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 12 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 12 citing cases on record, 8 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from evicting the applicant from leased land pending the hearing of the main suit. The applicant, a 53-year lessee operating an oil and petroleum business, satisfied all three requirements for a temporary injunction: it demonstrated a prima facie case regarding the lessor's alleged wrongful eviction for non-payment of rent; it showed it would suffer irreparable injury including loss of business goodwill and reputation; and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted pending hearing of the main suit

Facts

GAPCO Uganda Limited, the applicant, held a lease on land for approximately 53 years and operated an oil, gas and petroleum distribution business on the premises. The respondents, as lessors, sought to evict the applicant on allegations of non-payment of rent since 2010. The applicant claimed it had paid rent diligently throughout its tenancy and that the respondents had re-entered and sold the suit property. The applicant brought an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from evicting it and to allow it to continue operations pending the hearing of the main suit, Civil Suit No. 133 of 2013.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by damages.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of a temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Temporary injunction issued to restrain the respondents and their agents, servants or anyone claiming title under them from evicting the applicant from the suit land.
  • Respondents to observe the status quo that persisted on the suit land as on 24th February 2013.
  • Applicant allowed to continue its operations on the suit land under the subsisting lease until the hearing and final disposal of Civil Suit No. 133 of 2013.
  • Costs of the application in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Principles for Grant
The grant of a temporary injunction is an exercise of judicial discretion for the purpose of preserving matters in status quo until the question investigated in the main suit is finally disposed of.
Temporary Injunctions — Three-Part Test
For a court to grant a temporary injunction, the applicant must show: (i) a prima facie case with a probability of success, meaning the claim is not frivolous or vexatious and there is a serious question to be tried; (ii) that the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not be adequately compensated by an award of damages; and (iii) if the court is in doubt, the balance of convenience favours the applicant.
Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case
At the interlocutory stage for a temporary injunction, the law does not require the court to delve into the merits of the main suit; all that is required is proof that there is a serious issue to be tried and that the issue is neither frivolous nor vexatious.
Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury
Irreparable injury does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means that the injury must be a substantial or material one that cannot be adequately compensated for by damages.
Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience
If the court is in doubt on whether a prima facie case or irreparable injury has been established, it will decide the application on the balance of convenience, which means that if the risk of doing an injustice will make the applicant suffer, the balance of convenience is favourable to the applicant and the court will be inclined to grant the temporary injunction.
Landlord and Tenant — Eviction — Irreparable Injury from Loss of Business Goodwill
A long-standing tenant who has occupied leased premises for over 53 years and operated a business may suffer irreparable injury from eviction that cannot be adequately atoned for by damages, including loss of goodwill cultivated on the land and damage to business reputation.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (5)

  • E.L.T Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Nasser Kiingi and Another v Attorney General and two others (Constitutional Application No. 29 of 2012)
  • American Cynamide v Ethicon [1975] ALL ER 504
  • Victoria Construction works Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (HMA No. 601 of 2010)
  • J. K. Sentongo v Shell (U) Ltd [1995] 111 KLR 1

Cases citing this judgment (12)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

GAPCO Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa & Anor (Ma No. 259 of 2013) [2013] UGHCLD 47 (28 May 2013)
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.