Wakilii

Mabirizi v Kabaka of Buganda (Civil Application 28 of 2019)

Supreme Court · [2020] UGSC 9 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for an interim order of injunction before a single Justice of the Supreme Court, pending the determination of a substantive application and a pending appeal.
Decision
Application for an interim injunction dismissed with costs to the respondent.

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 applicant sought an interim injunction restraining the respondent from door-to-door collection of ground rent (busuulu) on official mailo land pending appeal. Sitting as a single Justice, the Court dismissed the application. First, it had been overtaken by events, as the collection exercise had already concluded. Second, the relief sought did not arise from Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2018, which concerned only a discovery order. Third, under Article 132(2) of the Constitution the Supreme Court's civil jurisdiction is limited to appeals from the Court of Appeal, so a matter not canvassed there cannot competently be raised in the Supreme Court. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Outcome

Application for an interim injunction dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The respondent launched a door-to-door programme on 15 November 2019 to collect ground rent (busuulu) from settlers on official mailo land registered in its name, scheduled to run from 18 November 2019 to 31 January 2020. The applicant, claiming to be a beneficiary of the trust over the land and a settler facing threatened eviction, applied to the Supreme Court for an interim injunction restraining the collection and related activities pending determination of Civil Application No. 27 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2018. Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2018 was pending before the Supreme Court and arose from the Court of Appeal's decision in Civil Appeal No. 184 of 2017, which had concerned only a High Court discovery order. The applicant's own High Court suit had earlier been dismissed by Adonyo J. By the time the application was heard on 12 February 2020, the collection exercise had already concluded.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for an interim injunction had been overtaken by events.
  2. Whether the relief sought arose from Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2018 pending before the Supreme Court.
  3. Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to grant the interim orders sought.
  4. Whether costs should be awarded against the self-represented applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Interim Injunction — Application Overtaken by Events
An application for an interim injunction will be dismissed where the act sought to be restrained has already occurred or concluded, rendering the application moot.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court — Article 132(2) of the Constitution
The civil jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeal; a matter not canvassed and decided before the Court of Appeal cannot competently be raised before the Supreme Court.
Interim Orders Pending Appeal — Scope
The Supreme Court may grant interim orders staying the orders of the Court of Appeal only in respect of relief arising from an appeal properly before it which itself arises from a decision of the Court of Appeal; relief extraneous to that appeal cannot be granted.
Costs — Article 50 of the Constitution
A litigant who has not taken the necessary steps to bring his application under Article 50 of the Constitution cannot rely on that Article to be shielded from an adverse costs order.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (14)

  • Omondi v National Bank of Kenya Ltd & Ors, Milimani Commercial Courts No. 958 of 2001
  • Rwanyarare James v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition No. 11 of 1997)
  • Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and Anor (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2001] 2 W.L.R. 72
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] E.A. 696
  • Ssekikubo & 4 Others v Attorney General & 4 Ors (Constitutional Application No. 4 of 2014)
  • Katabazi & Ors v The Secretary General, East African Community & Anor (Reference No. 1 of 2007)
  • E.B. Nyakaana & Sons Ltd v Kobusingye & 16 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2017)
  • Alcon International Ltd v The New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd & Anor (Civil Application No. 4 of 2010)
  • Francis Ngaruko v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (EACJ First Instance Division Application No. 3 of 2019)
  • Male H. Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (EACJ First Instance Division Applications No. 4 & 6 of 2019)
  • Yakobo Senkungu and Others v Cerencio Mukasa (Civil Application No. 5 of 2013)
  • Julius Rwabinumi v Hope Bahimbisomwe (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2009)
  • Kasibante Moses v Katongole Singh Marwaha & Anor (Election Petition No. 23 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mabirizi v Kabaka of Buganda (Civil Application 28 of 2019) [2020] UGSC 9 (18 June 2020)
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.