Wakilii

Kisakye v Ameu and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 142 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 59 · 2023 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from pending civil suit for declaration of ownership
Decision
Temporary injunction granted to preserve the status quo until final determination of Civil Suit No. 23 of 2021

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case, as there were serious questions to be tried regarding ownership of the suit property. The applicant proved irreparable injury, as she risked losing her home where she resides with her children, evidenced by the respondents pouring stones at her doorstep. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, who has her residence on the suit land, though both parties derive livelihood from cultivation. The temporary injunction was granted to preserve the status quo pending determination of the main suit.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted to preserve the status quo until final determination of Civil Suit No. 23 of 2021

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 23 of 2021 claiming ownership of land comprised in Freehold Register SOR10 Folio 16, plot 617 Block 8 in Serere District. She resides on the land with her children and cultivates gardens there. The respondents are the registered proprietors of the same land, which they claim to have purchased in 1994. They have developed the land through cultivation and construction. The respondents filed the civil suit seeking a declaration that they are the rightful owners and the applicant is a trespasser. The applicant counterclaimed that the land belongs to her and the Bawanga clan, and sought cancellation of the respondents' certificate of title on grounds of fraud. The applicant brought this interlocutory application alleging that the respondents poured construction materials at her doorstep, took over her gardens, and threatened to demolish her house and dispose of the property. The respondents denied the threats and contended they are merely cultivating seasonal crops for livelihood.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has demonstrated 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 applicant or the respondents.

Orders

  • Application for a temporary injunction is allowed.
  • The applicant and her children shall continue to live in the house on the suit land until the determination and issuance of final orders in Civil Suit No. 23 of 2021.
  • Both parties are ordered to continue cultivating the parts of the suit land they did before the filing of Civil Suit No. 23 of 2021.
  • The respondents are hereby restrained from carrying out any construction works on the suit land and further ordered to remove the building materials poured on the suit land at own cost within seven (7) days, with any failure to do so amounting to contempt of court.
  • Both parties are further hereby restrained from carrying out or dealing with the suit land in any way until further orders of this court.
  • Each party to this application to bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Test for Establishment
To establish a prima facie case with a probability of success for purposes of a temporary injunction, an applicant need only satisfy the court that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is a serious question to be tried; the applicant is not required to prove success itself at this interlocutory stage.
Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Evidence Required
An applicant seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate irreparable injury that cannot be adequately compensated by damages; where an applicant risks losing her home in which she resides with her children and evidence shows the respondents have poured construction materials at her doorstep, irreparable injury is established notwithstanding lack of direct evidence of threats to demolish.
Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Residence on Disputed Land
In determining the balance of convenience for a temporary injunction over disputed land, where the applicant has her residence on the land and the respondents are registered proprietors who use the land for cultivation, the balance favours the applicant whose home is at risk, though both parties may be permitted to continue deriving livelihood from the land pending final determination.
Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo — Preservation Pending Suit
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the question to be investigated in the main suit is finally disposed of; where both parties have been using disputed land for cultivation and one party has her residence there, the status quo is preserved by allowing both to continue their prior uses pending determination of ownership.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (8)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kisakye_v_Ameu_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._142_of_2022)_[2023]_UGHCLD_59_(1_March_2023)
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.