Wakilii

Katunku & 8 Others v Katunku & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 128 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 799 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction pending the determination of Civil Suit No. 73 of 2022
Decision
Temporary injunction granted pending determination of Civil Suit No. 73 of 2022

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 taking possession or evicting the applicants from the disputed land pending determination of Civil Suit No. 73 of 2022. The court found that the applicants established a prima facie case with probability of success, would suffer irreparable injury if evicted, and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo in their favour given their possession since 1986.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted pending determination of Civil Suit No. 73 of 2022

Facts

The applicants, nine siblings, claimed their deceased mother Edith Mary Katunku was allocated Plot 33/35B Palisa Road by the Departed Asian Property Custodian Board in 1975 and they had been in possession since 1986. The 2nd respondent obtained a certificate of title to the property, which the applicants alleged was fraudulent. In May 2024, Mbale City obtained a demolition order against the 2nd respondent in Civil Suit No. 23 of 2024 on grounds of public health and safety, and the structure was demolished on 24 May 2024. After demolition, the respondents attempted to take possession, prompting the applicants to seek this temporary injunction while their main suit challenging the 2nd respondent's title remained pending.

Issues

  1. Whether there are grounds for granting this application for a temporary injunction pending the determination of the main suit.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is issued restraining all the Respondents from taking possession and evicting the Applicants from the suit property comprised in registered land formally described as LRV 428 Folio 14 Plot 33/35 Palisa Road, Mbale now described as FRV MBA 155, Folio 22, Plot 33-35 located at Hospital Cell, Palisa Road, Mbale pending the hearing and determination of Civil Suit No. 73 of 2022.
  • A temporary injunction is issued restraining the Respondents from interfering with the Applicants' possession and use of the suit land.
  • A temporary injunction is issued restraining the 2nd Respondent from transferring, selling or in any way disposing of the suit land pending the determination of Civil Suit No. 73 of 2022.
  • The Applicants shall not make any development on the suit land until determination of Civil Suit No. 073 of 2022.
  • Costs of this Application are awarded to the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Successive Applications — New Evidence and Changed Circumstances
A party may file a fresh application for temporary injunction even where previous applications have been dismissed if there is new evidence that was not available during the previous application or there is a change in the circumstances.
Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Standard of Proof
In establishing a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, the court must be satisfied on the basis of the material availed that there are serious questions to be tried between the parties with a probability that the question will be decided in favour of the applicant.
Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Meaning
Irreparable injury in the context of temporary injunctions does not mean that there must not be physical possibility of repairing injury, but means that the injury must be a substantial or material one, that is, one that cannot adequately be compensated for in damages.
Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Loan Against Disputed Property
Where a respondent acquires a loan facility using disputed property as collateral after a suit challenging the title has been filed, the loan cannot be a basis for denial of a temporary injunction application, and the balance of convenience will favour an applicant who has been in continuous possession of the land.
Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo — Effect of Demolition Order
Where a structure on disputed land is demolished pursuant to a court order obtained during the pendency of a suit challenging title, the status quo to be maintained by a temporary injunction is that the party who was in possession before the demolition shall remain entitled to possession, but no permanent developments shall be made on the land until final determination of the suit.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] 1 EA 358
  • Nalongo Estate Ltd v KCC & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 256 of 2017)
  • Digital Solutions Ltd v MTN Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 546 of 2004)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Katende (1985) HCB 43

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katunku & 8 Others v Katunku & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 128 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 799 (30 August 2024)
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.