Wakilii

Lukonge Cotton Company Limited v Commissioner Land Registration and Others [2025] UGHC 1352

High Court · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution and temporary injunction arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 211 of 2020
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

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

The High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution and temporary injunction, holding that the application was moot because the order sought to be stayed had already been executed when the land was transferred to the third respondent. The court further held that the applicant failed to establish irreparable damage and that the balance of convenience favoured the third respondent who held legal title to the land.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

Lukonge Cotton Company Limited was the registered proprietor of land comprised in LRV JJA414 Folio 22 Plot 68-72 at Masese Jinja. Hardrock Quarry (U) Limited had previously instituted Miscellaneous Application No. 211 of 2020 seeking to be reinstated as registered proprietor of the same land. That application was heard ex parte and on 18 May 2021 the court ordered that Hardrock Quarry's name be entered on the certificate of title. Lukonge Cotton Company was not a party to that application. On 25 April 2024, the Commissioner Land Registration transferred the land from Lukonge Cotton Company to Hardrock Quarry. Lukonge Cotton Company then filed this application seeking to stay execution of the orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 211 of 2020 and to restrain Hardrock Quarry from evicting it, pending determination of a review application it had filed.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of execution of the orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 211 of 2020 is properly before the court.
  2. Whether the application fulfils the grounds for the grant of a temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Mootness — Application Overtaken by Events
An application for stay of execution becomes moot and cannot be granted where the order sought to be stayed has already been executed and the court is incapable of granting the remedy sought.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Prima Facie Case — Triable Issues
To establish a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, the applicant must show that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious and that there are serious questions to be tried. The law does not require that the applicant has a plausible case but necessitates a determination that there is a serious issue to be decided at trial.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Irreparable Damage — Quantifiable Loss
Irreparable damage means damage that cannot be adequately compensated for in damages. The loss of money is a quantifiable loss that can be compensated for in damages and does not constitute irreparable damage. An applicant must demonstrate how threatened eviction will lead to irreparable damage beyond mere assertion.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Balance of Convenience — Legal Interest in Property
In determining the balance of convenience for the grant of a temporary injunction, the court will favour the party that has a legal interest in the property in dispute where the applicant has failed to adduce evidence of possession.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (11)

  • Mwiru Paul v National Council for Higher Education and 2 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2016)
  • Joseph Borowski V Attorney General of Canada (1989) 1 SCR 342
  • Lubega Moses v Nassimbwa Sylvia (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 122 of 2024)
  • Ndema Emanzi Rukandema v Mubiru Henry (Miscellaneous Application No. 225 of 2013)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa Vs. Hajji Abdul Nasser Katende (1985) HCB page 43
  • Godfrey Sekitoleko and Four Others v Seezi Peter Mutabazi and Two Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2011)
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (High Court Civil Suit No. 630 of 1993)
  • Mutumba v Crane Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1536 of 2017)
  • American Cynamid Co Vs Ethicon Ltd (1975) 1 WLR 316
  • American Cyanamid v Ethicon Limited 1975 AC at page 396
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v Kaweesa Badru (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lukonge Cotton Company Limited v Commissioner Land Registration and Others 2025 UGHC 1352 (14 July 2025)
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.