Wakilii

Lokolong v China Communication Construction Company Limited (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 0065 of 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 195 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from civil suit claiming property damage from stone quarrying operations
Decision
Application for temporary injunction dismissed

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

Application for temporary injunction dismissed. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury, or balance of convenience. The respondent held valid authorisations for quarrying operations, had previously compensated the applicant, and implemented protective measures. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent executing a national infrastructure project with contractual deadlines over the applicant whose potential damages were compensable in monetary terms.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed

Facts

The applicant, registered proprietor of land adjacent to a stone quarry, sought a temporary injunction against the respondent's quarrying operations, alleging property damage from blasting. The respondent had been sued previously in 2015 and paid compensation of UGX 24,416,950 under a consent judgment. The respondent held authorisations from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Wakiso District Local Government, and NEMA to quarry stone for the Kampala-Entebbe Expressway construction. Following the 2015 suit, the respondent implemented protective measures within a mandated 500-metre radius. The applicant's house was located approximately 100 metres from the quarry. The respondent was executing works under contractual deadlines for a national infrastructure project.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with high chances of success in the main suit.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury that cannot be compensated by damages if the temporary injunction is not granted.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of the temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Injunctions — Conditions for Grant — Prima Facie Case
For a court to grant a temporary injunction, the applicant must establish: (i) a prima facie case in the main suit raising triable issues; (ii) that the applicant will suffer irreparable damage that cannot be compensated by damages if the application is not granted; and (iii) that the balance of convenience favours grant of the application.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Meaning and Application
Irreparable injury does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means that the injury must be substantial or material and cannot be adequately compensated for in damages.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — National Projects
Where a respondent is executing a project of national importance under contractual deadlines, the balance of convenience may favour refusing an injunction where granting it would expose the respondent to substantial financial losses, increased operational costs, and setbacks in project completion, particularly where the applicant's damages are compensable in monetary terms.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Injunctions — Previous Compensation — Effect on Application
Where an applicant has previously received compensation for substantially the same damage alleged in a subsequent application for injunction, and the respondent has implemented protective measures to prevent recurrence, the applicant cannot establish irreparable injury that cannot be compensated in damages.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lokolong v China Communication Construction Company Limited (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 0065 of 2017) [2017] UGHCCD 195 (6 July 2017)
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.