Madhvani Group Limited v Simbwa and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1160 of 2012)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from trespassing on land registered in the applicant's name. The court held that respondents who filed no affidavit in reply are deemed to have admitted the applicant's evidence and cannot seek to cross-examine the deponent. The applicant established a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted restraining respondents from trespassing on the suit land pending determination of the main suit

Facts

The applicant, Madhvani Group Limited, is the registered proprietor of land comprised in Freehold Register Volume 45 Folio 2, on which it operates a tea estate. On 26 November 2012, the respondents entered the suit land and began demarcating it, constructing roads and buildings, slashing vegetation, and parcelling it into plots. On 28 November 2012, the respondents and their agents threatened the applicant's officers and employees with physical harm and eviction. The respondents attempted to survey the land and obtain a parallel certificate of title despite the applicant's existing certificate. The applicant filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and brought this application for temporary injunction. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed no affidavit in reply but sought to cross-examine the applicant's deponent. The 3rd respondent filed an affidavit in reply after the court-directed deadline.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from trespassing on the suit land.
2. Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents are entitled to cross-examine the applicant's deponent where they filed no affidavit in reply.

Orders

• Application allowed in the terms and orders sought.
• Temporary injunction granted restraining the respondents jointly and severally from entering upon the land comprised in Freehold Register Volume 45 Folio 2, and from trespassing thereupon including constructing roads, building, grading, slashing and clearing vegetation covers and trees, or in any other way disturbing the applicant's quiet and peaceful possession.
• Oral application by Counsel for 1st and 2nd respondents to cross-examine the applicant's deponent dismissed with costs in the cause.
• Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 rules 1, 2 and 9

Cases cited (2)

• Makerere University v St. Mark Education Institute Ltd and Others [1994] KALR 26
• Shelton Okabo v Standard Charted Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 51 of 1992)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Madhvani Group Ltd v Simbwa & Ors (Ma No. 1160 of 2012)

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