Kavuma v Hotel International Limited (Civil Appeal 8 of 1990)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against an order discharging a temporary injunction. The power under O.37 r.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to discharge or set aside an injunction, though widely framed, is subject to principle: the court must test whether the conditions for granting the injunction were satisfied on the evidence available when it was granted, and must not treat the application as a review under O.42 or as an appeal under O.40 r.1(q) before another judge of the same court. The trial judge erred by relying on fresh evidence (a later handwriting report) and by re-appraising the merits as on appeal, wrongly concluding the appellant had no probability of success. The discharge order was set aside with costs.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; the order discharging the temporary injunction was set aside.

Facts

The appellant's predecessor, Nora Nakiridde Namwandu Mpalasi (later represented by her son Robert Kavuma), sued Hotel International Ltd for a declaration that she owned land comprised in Kyaddondo Block 244, Plot 2261, on which residential houses stood, for an injunction restraining trespass, and for damages. She alleged she had bought the property from Kasiitwa Mulindwa, who had bought it from Samwiri Kato Sebagereka; the transfer to Mulindwa was never completed, and Mulindwa died before it was done. She alleged the administrators of Mulindwa's estate colluded with Sebagereka and the respondent to fraudulently transfer the property to the respondent, which became the registered proprietor. In July 1987 a temporary injunction was granted restraining the respondent from evicting tenants and from developing the land. In April 1989 the trial judge discharged the injunction, relying in part on a later handwriting expert report suggesting Mulindwa's signature was forged, and finding the appellant had not shown a probability of success and that any loss was compensable in damages. The appellant appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the court's power under O.37 r.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules to discharge or set aside a temporary injunction is unlimited or is subject to principles or guidelines.
2. Whether the power to discharge or set aside a temporary injunction under O.37 r.4 is governed by the same conditions as a review under O.42.
3. Whether an application under O.37 r.4 should be equated with an appeal under O.40 r.1(q) against the order granting the injunction.
4. Whether the trial judge erred in discharging the temporary injunction by relying on evidence that was not available when the injunction was granted and by finding no probability of success.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• Order of the High Court discharging the temporary injunction set aside.
• Costs of the appeal and of the court below awarded to the appellant, to be costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Civil Procedure Rules O.37 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules O.37 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules O.37 r.4
• Civil Procedure Rules O.40 r.1(q)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.42
• Registration of Titles Act (Cap 205) s.56
• Registration of Titles Act (Cap 205) s.76
• Registration of Titles Act (Cap 205) s.184
• Land Transfer Act (Cap 202)
• Decree No. 5 of 1973 s.1(1)
• Decree No. 5 of 1973 s.2
• Decree No. 17 of 1972
• Decree No. 27 of 1972

Cases cited (5)

• Nsubuga and Another v Mutawo (1974) EA 487
• Noor Mohamed Jamohamed v Kassamali Virji Madhani (1953) 20 EACA 8
• East African Industries v Trufoods (1972) EA 420
• Giella v Cassman Brown and Co Ltd (1973) EA 358
• American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Lucky and Lucky Co. SMC Limited and Caleb Mwesigye Kashugyeera v The Micro Finance Support Centre Ltd and Others (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28 of 2024)

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