Lunkuse v Ssali Tamale & Anor (Misc. Applic. No. 926 of 2012)
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 court granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from evicting the applicant, selling, transferring or dealing with land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 110 plot 1640 at Seeta. The applicant, claiming to be the wife of the registered proprietor who mortgaged the land without her consent, established a prima facie case raising triable issues about the validity of consent to the mortgage. The court found a status quo to preserve as the applicant was in possession, and held she would suffer irreparable injury if evicted given her sentimental attachment and occupation of the matrimonial home.
Outcome
Temporary injunction granted pending determination of civil suit no. 494 of 2012
Facts
The applicant Ruth Lunkuse claimed to be the wife of the first respondent Henry Ssali Tamale, the registered proprietor of land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 110 plot 1640 at Seeta. The first respondent mortgaged the land to Stanbic Bank as collateral for a loan. The applicant alleged the mortgage was executed without her consent. The bank presented a letter of consent and marriage certificate showing consent by one Nalunjogi Salima as wife to the first respondent. The applicant denied knowing Nalunjogi Salima and alleged the marriage certificate was a forgery. The bank foreclosed on the mortgage and advertised the land for sale, demanding vacant possession. The applicant, residing on the property, filed a civil suit challenging the mortgage and sought a temporary injunction to prevent eviction and sale pending determination of her claim.
Issues
- Whether a temporary injunction should issue to restrain the respondents from evicting the applicant and dealing with the suit land pending determination of the main suit.
- Whether there is a status quo to preserve.
- Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with probability of success.
- Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- Temporary injunction granted restraining the respondents, their agents, assignees, servants and employees from evicting the applicant, selling, transferring or dealing with the suit land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 110 plot 1640 at Seeta until hearing and determination of the main suit.
- Costs of the application to be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Cases cited (4)
- Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Katende [1985] HCB 43
- Commodity Trading Industries v Uganda Maize Industries & Anor [2001-2005] HCB 118
- Sekitoleko v Mutabaazi & Ors [2001-2005] HCB 79
- Imelda Bakedde v Busulwa Nsereko [1996] 6 KALR 46
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.