Kigongo v Kakeeto & Anor (MISC. APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2017)

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 court held that the applicant established a prima facie case with triable issues concerning land ownership and trespass. Sand excavation constitutes irreparable damage because it drains the land and the value of sand keeps increasing. A temporary injunction was granted to restrain both parties from sand mining pending determination of the main suit on ownership.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted pending determination of the main suit

Facts

The applicant claimed to be the lawful owner and occupant of approximately 15 acres of land at Lubanda, Lukonge, Mpigi District, having been in uninterrupted possession for over 20 years with developments including trees and a water dam. The Mpigi District Land Board granted a freehold title (Volume HQT 49 Folio 23, Block 267 Plot 36) to Josephine Nantaba which allegedly included the applicant's kibanja. Nantaba transferred the title to the first respondent, Kakeeto Rogers, who in 2016 began excavating sand on the land. The respondent asserted he purchased the land bonafide and that it is separate from the applicant's land (Block 267 Plot 8), which merely borders his property. The respondent claimed the applicant was encroaching on his land to construct a dam. A previous civil suit (No. 93 of 2016) and related applications had been filed over the same dispute, with the court having earlier directed a joint survey which the applicant allegedly refused to participate in.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the temporary injunction is not granted.
3. Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of a temporary injunction.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• Temporary injunction granted restraining the respondents, their servants, agents, employees and any other person acting under their instructions from trespassing, mining sand, cutting down trees, evicting and carrying out any dealings on the suit property at Lubanda, Lukonge, Mpigi District pending disposal of Civil Suit No. 105 of 2017.
• Costs to be in the cause.
• Hearing of main suit to be fast-tracked during November 2017.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.1(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.50 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules O.50 r.3
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.38

Cases cited (4)

• Sargat v Patel (1949) 16 EACA 63
• American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
• Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
• Robert Kavuma v M/S Hotel International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

• Kisakye v Ameu and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 142 of 2022)
• Ochom v Etyang (Miscellaneous Application 187 of 2021)
• Ikinu v Osele and 18 Others (Miscellaneous Application 17 of 2022)
• Sammy J Company and 2 Others v Opportunity Bank U Limited and Another (Miscellaneous Application 185 of 2021)

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