Wakilii

Harshad Barot and Another v Ruyondo Priscilla Matsiko and Another (Miscellaneous Appeal 47 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 216 · 2026 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from ruling of Registrar granting temporary injunction in execution proceedings
Decision
Temporary injunction vacated; execution proceedings may continue

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

Held that a temporary injunction granted to halt a court-supervised execution sale was erroneous and an abuse of process. The proper procedure to challenge an ongoing execution is through objector proceedings under Order 22 Rule 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not by filing a separate civil suit and obtaining an injunction. Filing a separate suit to obtain an injunction against court-sanctioned execution proceedings constitutes a gross abuse of well-known court procedures. The appeal was allowed, the temporary injunction vacated, and costs awarded against counsel for the respondent personally.

Outcome

Temporary injunction vacated; execution proceedings may continue

Facts

The 1st Appellant obtained judgment in Civil Suit No. 97 of 2022 against Mohammed Kitaka for breach of contract relating to land comprised in Plot 263 Block 65, Mbalwa, Kyadondo, Wakiso District. Execution proceedings commenced in 2024 via Miscellaneous Application No. 0179 of 2024. The suit land was sold by court bailiff to the 2nd Appellant for UGX 500,000,000 on 26th September 2024. A vesting order was issued on 14th February 2025. On 31st October 2024, the 1st Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 1018 of 2024 claiming to be the rightful owner of the suit land and challenging the court-supervised sale. The 1st Respondent obtained a temporary injunction from the Registrar on 18th May 2025 halting the execution. The Appellants appealed, arguing the injunction interfered with lawful court-supervised execution and that the proper remedy was objector proceedings under Order 22 Rule 55, not a separate suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the temporary injunction granted in Miscellaneous Application No. 2912 of 2024 ought to be vacated and set aside?

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Ruling and orders of HW. Josephine Kabasinguzi Kayondo delivered on 18th May 2025 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2912 of 2024 set aside.
  • Temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 2912 of 2024 vacated.
  • Costs of this appeal to be paid by Counsel for the 1st Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Execution — Objections to Execution — Proper Procedure
A party seeking to challenge the attachment or sale of property in execution proceedings must bring an application under Order 22 Rule 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules objecting to the attachment on the ground that the property is not subject to execution, rather than filing a separate civil suit.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Temporary Injunctions — Court-Supervised Execution
It is erroneous and an abuse of process to grant a temporary injunction to halt a court-supervised execution sale where the proper remedy is objector proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Administrative Law — Advocates — Professional Conduct — Costs Against Counsel
Where counsel intentionally files a separate suit and obtains an injunction to derail ongoing court execution proceedings in circumstances where counsel is fully aware of the proper procedure, costs may be awarded personally against counsel under Regulation 12 of the Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Harshad Barot and Another v Ruyondo Priscilla Matsiko and Another (Miscellaneous Appeal 47 of 2024) [2026] UGHCLD 216 (15 June 2026)
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.