Wakilii

Kadozi sam v Kaben William (Civil Appeal No. 0003 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 923 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Magistrate Grade One's order granting temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 0011 of 2024 arising from Civil Suit No. 007 of 2024 at Kyankwanzi Court
Decision
Appeal dismissed; temporary injunction upheld; matter remitted to lower court for disposal of main suit

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 dismissed the appeal and upheld the Magistrate's grant of a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from further activities on disputed land. The court held that all three conditions for a temporary injunction were satisfied: the respondent established a prima facie case with likelihood of success, would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted, and the balance of convenience favored the respondent whose developments would be tampered with absent the order.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; temporary injunction upheld; matter remitted to lower court for disposal of main suit

Facts

The respondent filed a civil suit claiming ownership of land at Bisiika LC1 Nyabitakuri parish in Kyankwanzi district. The appellant denied the claim, asserting he was the owner having acquired the land from his father who bought it from late Siriwano Araali. The respondent filed an application for temporary injunction, which the Magistrate Grade One granted on 13 December 2024. Both parties claimed possession of the land and swore affidavits asserting ownership. Evidence from locus and photographs showed agricultural activities ongoing on the land with both parties occupying different parts. The appellant appealed the grant of the temporary injunction, arguing the trial magistrate changed the status quo by restraining him from utilizing land he was already cultivating.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in law and fact when she failed to properly evaluate the evidence on record and came to a wrong conclusion that the appellant should be restrained from using the suit land pending the conclusion of the main suit.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate properly applied the conditions for grant of a temporary injunction.
  3. Whether the trial magistrate changed the status quo by restraining the appellant from utilizing the suit land.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal.
  • The lower court files shall be transferred back for disposal of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Duty of First Appellate Court
The duty of a first appellate court is to scrutinize and re-evaluate the evidence on record and come to its own conclusion, making allowance for the fact that it has neither seen nor heard the witnesses. The court must consider the evidence on any issue in its totality and not any piece in isolation.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant
A temporary injunction may be granted where the applicant shows: (1) a prima facie case with probability of success; (2) that the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not be adequately compensated by damages; and (3) if court is in doubt, the balance of convenience favors the applicant. Before establishing a prima facie case, it is imperative to establish whether there is a status quo to be preserved.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case
At the stage of determining whether a prima facie case exists, the court does not delve deep into the merits to see if the applicant has a plausible case. Rather, the court determines that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is a serious issue to be determined.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury
Irreparable injury does not mean that there must be physical impossibility of repairing the injury, but means that the injury must be a substantial or material one that cannot be adequately compensated for in damages.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience
Balance of convenience means that if the risk of doing an injustice is going to make the applicant suffer, then the probability of the balance of convenience is favorable to the applicant and the court would most likely be inclined to grant the application for a temporary injunction.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Baguma Fred v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2004)
  • E.L.T Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdu Nasser Katende [1986] HCB 43
  • Xing Wang Company Ltd v Zheng Zuping (Miscellaneous Company Cause No. 001 of 2018)
  • Moses Kasozi v Muhammad Batte & 4 Others (High Court Land Division Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2020)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co [1973] EA 358
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v Kaweesa Badru (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kadozi sam v Kaben William (Civil Appeal No. 0003 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 923 (20 June 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.