Wakilii

Lotigo v Arinaitwe & Anor (Ma No. 248 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGHCLD 48 · 2013 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from civil suit
Decision
Temporary injunction granted pending determination of main suit

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

Held that the applicant established a prima facie case with high probability of success based on allegations of fraud in the transfer and mortgaging of his land without his knowledge. The court exercised its discretion to grant a temporary injunction without requiring the 30% deposit under Mortgage Regulations 2012, finding that the applicant was not the mortgagor and that allowing foreclosure would jeopardize investigations into the alleged fraud and cause irreparable harm to the applicant who had developed the land worth over one billion shillings.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted pending determination of main suit

Facts

The applicant was the registered proprietor of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 250 plots 870 and 871. On 13 June 2011, he leased the land to a Sudanese national and lodged the titles with the land registry for the leasee to obtain title. In March 2012, the applicant learned that the 2nd respondent bank was inspecting the land for foreclosure purposes under a mortgage. The applicant's advocates lodged a caveat on the land. The applicant claims he never mortgaged the land and that any transfer or change of proprietorship by the 1st respondent was fraudulent. The 2nd respondent, as a registered mortgagee, engaged bailiffs who harassed the applicant. The 2nd respondent opposed the application, arguing the applicant had not proved his registered proprietorship and should deposit 30% of the outstanding mortgage amount of UGX 112,705,649 under Mortgage Regulations 2012.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the orders being sought in this application for temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Application for temporary injunction allowed.
  • Respondents, their agents, servants or workmen restrained from attaching and selling, wasting or doing any act calculated to affect the applicant's interest in the suit premises comprised in Block 250 plots 870 and 871 until the determination of the main suit.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Prima Facie Case — Allegations of Fraud
Where an applicant alleges fraud in the transfer and mortgaging of land he owns, this constitutes a triable issue establishing a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo pending investigation of the fraud allegations.
Banking & Finance — Mortgage Foreclosure — 30% Deposit Requirement — Non-Mortgagor Applicant
The requirement under Regulation 13 of the Mortgage Regulations 2012 for a 30% deposit of the outstanding mortgage amount does not apply where the applicant seeking to restrain foreclosure is not the mortgagor and alleges fraud in the creation of the mortgage.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Irreparable Harm — Developments on Land
Where an applicant has made substantial developments on land worth over one billion shillings and foreclosure would result in a change of ownership, this constitutes irreparable harm that cannot adequately be compensated in damages, warranting the grant of a temporary injunction.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Purpose and Conditions
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve matters in status quo until the question to be investigated in the suit is finally disposed of. Before granting a temporary injunction, the court must be satisfied that the applicant has a prima facie case with probability of success and that the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable damage which would not easily be compensated in damages.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • E.L.T Kiyimba-Kaggwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende (Civil Suit No. 2109 of 1984)
  • Viola Ajok and Another v Andrew Ojok and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 179 of 2007)
  • Herbert v Housing Finance Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 923 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lotigo v Arinaitwe & Anor (Ma No. 248 of 2013) [2013] UGHCLD 48 (28 May 2013)
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.