Kagubale & 9 Others v Kiboga District Local Government & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 140 of 2024)
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 an application for temporary injunction to restrain dealings with disputed land. The court held that because the status quo intended to be preserved had already been tampered with, and the applicants failed to apply for leave to amend their pleadings or file a supplementary affidavit to seek restoration of the status quo, the application lacked merit. The court emphasized that it must ascertain the status quo before making an order for its preservation.
Outcome
Application for temporary injunction dismissed
Facts
The applicants filed an application in 2017 seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from dealing with land comprised in Leasehold Register Volume 1479 Folio 2, Singo Block 597 (formerly Plot 10) at Kiryanyonza, Kyamakola, Kiboga district. The dispute arose from an alleged lease offer granted by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent, which the applicants contended ignored their prior interests in the land. The applicants were already in occupation of the suit land. By the time of the hearing in 2024, counsel for the applicant informed the court that the status quo had been tampered with by the 3rd respondent who had dug a ditch. The 3rd respondent explained the ditch was on his own land to prevent cattle trespass. The main suit had already been set down for hearing.
Issues
- Whether the application raises sufficient grounds for granting a temporary injunction order.
- What are the remedies available?
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Each party to bear its own costs in this application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (5)
- American Cynamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 ALL ER 504
- Kiyimba Kagwa v Haji A.N. Katende (1985) HCB 43
- Godfrey Ssekitoleko & Others v Sseezi Mutabazi (2001-2005) HCB (3) 80
- Wasswa v Kakooza (1989) HCB 79
- Clavergen Fish & Food Ltd v International Finance Corporation & 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 441 of 2001)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.