Wakilii

Kabaka of Buganda and Another v Hon Sam Mayanja and Others (Miscellaneous Application 530 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 102 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 175 of 2025 (Judicial Review application)
Decision
Temporary injunction granted pending determination of the judicial review application

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 High Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from implementing ministerial directives issued on 10 March 2025 concerning land comprised in Kyadondo Block 273 Plot 5. The court held that the applicants established a prima facie case, would suffer irreparable damage if the directives were implemented, and the balance of convenience favoured them. The directives threatened the registered proprietorship of the Kabaka of Buganda and raised serious triable legal and constitutional issues requiring judicial determination.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted pending determination of the judicial review application

Facts

The 1st Applicant is the registered proprietor of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 273 Plot 5, land at Kaazi. In August 2024, the Commissioner Land Registration cancelled illegally created lease titles on the land on grounds they were obtained without the 1st Applicant's consent. On 6 and 10 March 2025, the Minister of State for Lands made public pronouncements and issued sixteen written directives to various government organs concerning ownership and occupancy of the property. The directives included orders to cancel the 1st Applicant's proprietorship, mutate and issue mailo title to the estate of Omulangira G.W. Mawanda, deregister the 2nd Applicant, remove armed private militia from the land, and halt the 2nd Applicant's compensation claims. The Applicants filed a judicial review application and sought a temporary injunction to restrain implementation of the directives pending determination of the main cause.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants are entitled to grant of an order of a temporary injunction?

Orders

  • A temporary injunction doth issue restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants, employees, assignees or anyone else claiming or deriving authority from the Respondents from implementing the impugned directives of the 1st Respondent issued on 10th March 2025 in relation to Block 273 Plot 5 Land at Kaazi until delivery of the ruling in Judicial Review Application MC No 175 of 2025.
  • Costs shall abide the outcome of the main application M.C 175 of 2025.

Rules and key headnotes

Ministerial Directives — Judicial Review — Temporary Injunction
Where a Minister issues directives that threaten the registered proprietary rights of a landowner and raise serious triable legal and constitutional issues, a court may grant a temporary injunction to restrain implementation of those directives pending judicial review, notwithstanding that the directives are addressed to technocrats who may implement them within the law.
Temporary Injunction — Prima Facie Case
To establish a prima facie case for a temporary injunction, the applicant must show that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is a serious question to be tried. The court does not delve deep into the merits but determines whether there is a bonafide dispute and an arguable case for trial which needs investigation and a decision on merits.
Temporary Injunction — Irreparable Injury
Irreparable injury does not mean that it is physically impossible to repair the injury, but rather that the injury must be substantial or material in nature such that an award of damages cannot adequately compensate. Where land holds deep customary, historical and political significance for a cultural institution, losing control over such land would cause harm that monetary compensation cannot remedy as cultural identity is inherently intangible and cannot be quantified.
Temporary Injunction — Balance of Convenience
The balance of convenience lies more on the party who will suffer more if the respondent is not restrained in the activities complained of. Where the applicant is a registered proprietor whose rights are threatened by ministerial directives, and the respondents are government officials acting in their official capacity with no personal loss to suffer, the balance of convenience favours the applicant.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (11)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] ALL ER 504
  • Prince Kalemera H Kimera v The Kabaka of Buganda (High Court Civil Suit No. 535 of 2017)
  • Diana Teyegalla v Uganda Scouts Association, Kabaka of Buganda & 2 Others (High Court Originating Summons No. 14 of 2023)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd (1973) EA 358
  • City Council of Kampala v Donozio Musisi Sekyaya (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 3 of 2000)
  • Equator International Distributors Ltd v Beiersdorf East Africa Ltd & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1127 of 2014)
  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1994) [1997] HCB 29
  • Titus Tayebwa v Fred Bogere and Eric Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
  • Shiv Construction v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
  • Victor Construction Works Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 601 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kabaka of Buganda and Another v Hon Sam Mayanja and Others (Miscellaneous Application 530 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 102 (18 July 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.