Wakilii

Hon. Eng. Dr. Ndawula Edward Kaweesi v Dr. Sam Mayanja and Another (Civil Application No. 117 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 381 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for a temporary injunction pending appeal, heard by a single Justice of the Court of Appeal
Decision
Temporary injunction granted, restraining the Respondents from interfering with the suit land until determination of Civil Appeal No. 0168 of 2025

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

On an application for a temporary injunction pending appeal, the single Justice dismissed the respondents' preliminary objection, holding that the dismissal of the applicant's judicial review reinstatement application and his pending appeal disclosed a cause of action against the respondents. Applying the American Cyanamid/Giella and Robert Kavuma principles, the Court found the appeal raised a triable issue regarding the dismissal of the judicial review application, that the resettlement of over 300 bibanja holders on the registered land would cause irreparable damage and render the appeal nugatory, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant as registered proprietor. The injunction was granted until determination of Civil Appeal No. 0168 of 2025, with each party bearing its own costs.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted, restraining the Respondents from interfering with the suit land until determination of Civil Appeal No. 0168 of 2025

Facts

The applicant is the registered proprietor of five plots of land in Kiboga district which he claims to have possessed for over 30 years and on which he operates a farm, having compensated persons holding equitable interests. On 15 August 2024 the 1st respondent, the Minister of State for Lands, held a meeting in Kiboga and issued directives that resettled alleged bibanja holders whom the applicant had evicted, halted the evictions, and directed investigation into the lawfulness of the applicant's titles with a view to possible cancellation. The respondents asserted that over 300 residents had complained of forced eviction, torture, coerced sale agreements and minimal compensation. The applicant filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 19 of 2024 for judicial review, which was dismissed for non-appearance under Order 9 Rule 22; his application to reinstate it (Miscellaneous Application No. 216 of 2024) was dismissed with costs on 24 January 2025. He appealed (Civil Appeal No. 0168 of 2025) and brought this application for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from altering or destroying the suit land pending that appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has a cause of action against the Respondents.
  2. Whether the application satisfies the grounds for the grant of a temporary injunction.
  3. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection that the Applicant has no cause of action is dismissed.
  • A temporary injunction issues against the Respondents, their servants, assigns and agents, restraining them from altering, occupying or any form of destruction or waste of any part of the suit properties in Kiboga district until determination of Civil Appeal No. 0168 of 2025.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal — Conditions for Grant
An applicant for a temporary injunction pending appeal must establish that the appeal has a likelihood of success or a prima facie case of the right of appeal, and that irreparable damage will be suffered or the appeal rendered nugatory if the injunction is not granted; where these are not established, the court considers where the balance of convenience lies.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Purpose — Preservation of Status Quo
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo in respect of the matter in dispute until the appeal is determined, so that the appeal is not rendered nugatory.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Likelihood of Success — Triable Issue
In assessing likelihood of success the court does not determine whether the appeal will succeed but whether there are serious contentions to be considered; likelihood of success is established where the claim is not frivolous or vexatious and there is a serious question to be tried.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Essential Elements
A cause of action requires three elements: that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right was violated, and that the defendant is liable; if any essential element is missing no cause of action is established, and the question is determined on the pleadings alone assuming the alleged facts to be true.
Civil Procedure — Right of Appeal — Cause of Action Independent of Subsisting Suit
Once an order dismissing an application has been made, the aggrieved party's right to appeal that order cannot be denied on the ground that there is no longer a case before the lower court; such a dismissal itself founds a cause of action on appeal.
Land & Property — Irreparable Injury — Dealings in Registered Land
Where transactions in interests in land can take place quickly and recovery after a change of hands is difficult, and where a farm and its animals on the suit land require protection, a threatened change to the status quo over registered land constitutes irreparable injury justifying an injunction.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (11)

  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] EA 358
  • National Insurance Corporation v Mugenyi & Company Advocates [1987] HCB 28
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (No.3) [1971] EA 514
  • Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Rajab Ssempereza v Shem Mukasa (Civil Application No. 255 of 2024)
  • Tim Kabaza & 2 Ors v Chatha Investments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 745 of 2007)
  • Robert Kavuma v Hotel International (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo & Others v Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2013)
  • Gapco Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hon. Eng. Dr. Ndawula Edward Kaweesi v Dr. Sam Mayanja and Another (Civil Application No. 117 of 2025) [2025] UGCA 381 (24 November 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.