Wakilii

Madederi Eryasi v Kabagwira Esther and Another (Miscellaneous Application No 251 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 298 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim injunction arising from pending miscellaneous application, itself arising from consolidated civil suit and miscellaneous cause
Decision
Interim injunction granted restraining both parties from altering the status quo pending determination of the substantive application

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 an interim injunction will issue where a substantive application is pending and there exists a real danger of the status quo being altered before that application is heard. Following a locus visit, the court found evidence of ongoing activities including construction of a pit latrine beyond the respondents' acknowledged occupation area and cutting of trees, demonstrating a real and present threat of incremental encroachment. The court granted a limited injunction restraining both parties from altering the status quo: respondents confined to approximately 50 decimals currently occupied with no expansion permitted; applicant restrained from evicting respondents or obstructing their access.

Outcome

Interim injunction granted restraining both parties from altering the status quo pending determination of the substantive application

Facts

The applicant is the registered proprietor of land comprised in LRV 14 Folio 21 Buruli Block 212 Plot 13 at Nakasongola. He alleges that the respondents encroached onto approximately 60 acres of the suit land and commenced construction without lawful justification. The respondents contend they have been in long-standing occupation of the land for residential and livelihood purposes and that the applicant's title was irregularly obtained. The court conducted a locus visit and observed that the respondents' occupation appeared confined to approximately 50 decimals, but noted a pit latrine constructed outside that area, materials on site, and evidence of tree cutting, indicating ongoing and potentially expanding activity.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a substantive application pending before the court.
  2. Whether there exists a real and imminent threat of alteration of the status quo before the hearing of the substantive application.
  3. What orders are appropriate to preserve the subject matter of the dispute pending determination of the substantive application.

Orders

  • The Respondents, their agents and/or servants are hereby restrained from constructing, erecting any structures, cutting trees, depositing materials, or in any way extending or interfering with the suit land beyond the portion measuring approximately 50 decimals currently under their occupation, pending the hearing and determination of Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2025.
  • The Respondents shall remain in occupation of the said approximately 50 decimals only and shall not expand, alienate, or in any manner increase their occupation beyond that portion.
  • The Applicant, his agents and/or servants are hereby restrained from evicting, harassing, or in any way interfering with the Respondents' quiet occupation and use of the said approximately 50 decimals.
  • The existing access to the Respondents' portion is hereby preserved, and the Applicant shall not obstruct or interfere with such access.
  • The pit latrine situated outside the said 50 decimals shall, for sanitary reasons, be allowed to remain in its current state; however, no further construction, expansion, or additional structures shall be undertaken in that area.
  • No further developments or activities shall be undertaken by either party on the suit land in a manner that alters the status quo as herein defined.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2025.

Rules and key headnotes

Interim Injunctions — Requirements for Grant
For an interim injunction to issue, an applicant must demonstrate that there is a substantive application pending and that there exists a real danger of execution or of the status quo being altered before that application is heard. At that stage, the court is not required to determine the merits of the substantive dispute, but rather to act so as to preserve the ends of justice.
Interim Injunctions — Assessment of Threat to Status Quo
In determining whether there exists a serious or imminent threat of alteration of the status quo, the court must be satisfied that the threat is real and present and not merely speculative, and that it is capable of affecting the subject matter of the dispute if not restrained. Evidence of ongoing activities such as construction beyond acknowledged boundaries and cutting of trees may demonstrate a real and present threat.
Land Disputes — Incremental Encroachment
Encroachment in land disputes is often incremental, manifested through small but deliberate acts which, if left unchecked, may result in a material alteration of both the extent of occupation and the character of the land. Where such incremental acts are observed, the court may intervene to prevent gradual alteration of the subject matter pending determination of substantive rights.
Interim Injunctions — Preservation of Status Quo — Mutual Restraint
Where the court grants an interim injunction to preserve the status quo in a land dispute, it may impose mutual restraints on both parties: confining the respondents to their current occupation without expansion, while restraining the applicant from evicting the respondents or obstructing their access, thereby maintaining the existing state of affairs pending determination of substantive rights.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Isiah Phillip and 6 Others v Nziri and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 293 of 2014)
  • Hwang Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Madederi Eryasi v Kabagwira Esther and Another (Miscellaneous Application No 251 of 2025) 2026 UGHC 298 (31 March 2026)
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.