Wakilii

Kaganizo Mutesasira Evans and Twinomujuni Nathan Kakson v Uganda Liberal Teachers Union Members Savings and Credit Cooperative Society Ltd and Others [2025] UGHCCD 155

High Court · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from judicial review proceedings challenging removal from SACCO leadership
Decision
Application for temporary injunction dismissed; parties to await hearing of main 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

Application for temporary injunction dismissed. Court held that while applicants raised triable issues for judicial review of their removal from SACCO leadership, they failed to establish irreparable injury that could not be compensated by damages. The balance of convenience favoured maintaining the current SACCO administration appointed by special general meeting. Status quo to be preserved was the existing management structure, not the applicants' former positions. Costs to abide outcome of main judicial review application.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed; parties to await hearing of main judicial review application

Facts

Applicants were members and leaders of a SACCO who filed judicial review proceedings challenging their removal from leadership positions following meetings held on 8 February and 29 March 2025. Applicants alleged they were suspended without notice or hearing in violation of natural justice and constitutional rights. They were suspected of fraud and embezzlement involving 3.6 billion shillings and had been arrested and arraigned in the Anti-Corruption Court. Following their suspension, a special general meeting appointed new leaders (3rd and 4th respondents) and altered bank account signatories. The Minister of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives issued a directive reinstating applicants, but respondents maintained the special general meeting resolutions were valid and binding. Applicants sought temporary injunction to restore them to leadership pending judicial review.

Issues

  1. Whether the application merits the grant of a temporary injunction?
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Application does not merit the grant of a temporary injunction.
  • Costs shall abide the outcome of the main application for judicial review.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Serious Triable Issues
A prima facie case with probability of success requires that the court be satisfied the claim is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is a serious question to be tried. The existence of triable issues alone is not sufficient ground for automatic grant of temporary injunction; it must be considered together with irreparable injury and balance of convenience.
Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Adequacy of Damages
Irreparable injury means substantial or material injury that cannot be adequately compensated by damages. Loss of office, salary arrears, and reputational harm do not constitute irreparable injury where such losses can be atoned by monetary compensation or damages awards.
Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo — Definition and Application
Status quo to be preserved by temporary injunction is the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. The court should not preserve a contested status quo which is under challenge for illegality, especially in judicial review proceedings. Where a special general meeting has validly appointed new leadership, that becomes the status quo to preserve, not the former leadership positions under challenge.
Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Institutional Interests
In determining balance of convenience, the court may consider the interests of the institution or entity affected rather than only the competing interests of the parties. Where granting an injunction would create conflicting management structures and threaten the operational stability of an organisation, balance of convenience favours maintaining existing administrative arrangements.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (8)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajj Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Muzale Simon v NEMA (Miscellaneous Application No. 103 of 2024)
  • Ssekitoleko vs Mutabazi and another
  • Mpungu Hanifa v Salim Saad Uhuru (Miscellaneous Application No. 199 of 2024)
  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1994)
  • Victor Construction Works Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 601 of 2010)
  • Humphrey Nzeyi v Bank of Uganda and Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 01 of 2013)
  • GAPCO Uganda Limited vs Kaweesa Badru & 2 ORS

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaganizo Mutesasira Evans and Twinomujuni Nathan Kakson v Uganda Liberal Teachers Union Members Savings and Credit Cooperative Society Ltd and Others 2025 UGHCCD 155 (17 September 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.