Wakilii

Jackson W. Kiggundu Kato v Lukwago Stephen and Others (Civil Application No. 10 of 2026)

Supreme Court · [2026] UGSC 19 · 2026 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single Justice of the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to preserve the right of appeal pending determination of the appeal
Decision
Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the Respondents

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 a preliminary objection, a single Justice held that an application for a temporary injunction to the Supreme Court is incompetent where applications for the same orders are concurrently pending in the Court of Appeal. Rule 41(1) of the Supreme Court Rules requires such applications to be made first to the Court of Appeal, and section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act bars concurrent proceedings on the same matter between the same parties. The rule 41(2) exception to safeguard the right of appeal applies only where no concurrent application exists, or where the lower court application has been withdrawn or closed, which the applicant failed to prove. The objection was sustained and the application struck out with costs.

Outcome

Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the Respondents

Facts

The applicant instituted High Court Civil Suit No. 114 of 2020 against the respondents over land comprised in Mukono District Block 109, Plots 2871 and 2872, seeking a declaration that he was the lawful owner. Judgment was entered in his favour on 22 December 2022 declaring him the lawful owner. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 221 of 2023, which partially allowed the appeal. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. The respondents extracted a decree and threatened to change the proprietorship of the suit property and evict the applicant, who is 88 years old and claimed 25 years' residency on the land. The applicant sought a temporary injunction from a single Justice of the Supreme Court to maintain the status quo pending his appeal. The respondents showed that two identical applications (COA-00-CV-CL-0521-2026 and 0522-2026) for the same orders were already pending in the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for a temporary injunction is incompetent on the ground of lis pendens and forum shopping where concurrent applications for the same orders are pending in the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether a single Justice of the Supreme Court may entertain an application made directly to the Supreme Court under rule 41(2) to safeguard the right of appeal notwithstanding that a similar application has first been made to the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • The Respondents' preliminary objection is sustained.
  • The application is struck out.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Concurrent Proceedings — Lis Pendens — Stay of Suit under Civil Procedure Act s.6
A court shall not proceed with the trial of any suit or proceeding in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit or proceeding between the same parties pending in any other court having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed; an application for an injunction is a civil proceeding falling within this bar.
Civil Procedure — Supreme Court Rules — Rule 41(1) — Applications to be Made First to the Court of Appeal
Where an application may be made either to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeal, rule 41(1) of the Supreme Court Rules mandates that it be made first to the Court of Appeal, and entertaining a concurrent application in the Supreme Court while a similar one is pending in the Court of Appeal is an abuse of court process.
Civil Procedure — Supreme Court Rules — Rule 41(2) — Exception to Safeguard the Right of Appeal
Rule 41(2) read with rule 6(2)(b) confers a discretion on the Supreme Court to entertain an application made directly to it to safeguard the right of appeal only where no application for the same orders has been made concurrently to the Court of Appeal, or where any lower court application has been formally withdrawn or administratively closed; the applicant bears the burden of definitively proving such closure.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jackson W. Kiggundu Kato v Lukwago Stephen and Others (Civil Application No. 10 of 2026) [2026] UGSC 19 (27 April 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.