Wakilii

Madrine Ssanyu v Makanga David (Misc. Applic. Appeal No 3072 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 356 · 2025 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from an interlocutory ruling granting a temporary injunction in a land dispute
Decision
Temporary injunction set aside; main suit to proceed to trial

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 the temporary injunction granted by the Assistant Registrar was improper and illegal because it reversed the status quo by ordering the removal of materials blocking the disputed access road, thereby pre-determining the main suit in favour of the respondent before hearing the parties on the merits. The injunction violated the appellant's constitutional right to a fair hearing under Articles 28 and 44 of the Constitution. Where granting a temporary injunction disposes of the whole suit, such an injunction ought not to be granted. Appeal allowed and impugned decision set aside.

Outcome

Temporary injunction set aside; main suit to proceed to trial

Facts

The respondent Makanga purchased land comprised in Busiro Block 397 Plot 3667 at Bweya, Kajjansi Town Council in 2019 with an access road. The appellant Ssanyu purchased adjacent plots 614 and 611, which shared the same access road. She obtained amalgamation of the two plots to form plot 4133. Makanga alleged that Ssanyu blocked the access road using building materials and drums, preventing him from accessing his home. He filed the main suit for trespass and a permanent injunction, and obtained a temporary injunction from the Assistant Registrar ordering the road to be reopened. Ssanyu appealed, contending that Makanga had no legal right to create a road through her property and that a different access road was available to him.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Assistant Registrar erred in law and fact by granting a temporary injunction that disrupted the status quo.
  2. Whether the impugned decision had the effect of pre-determining the main suit.
  3. Whether the temporary injunction violated the appellant's right to a fair hearing.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The impugned decision and Order of a temporary injunction issued by the learned Assistant Registrar vide Misc. Applic. No. 1306 of 2023 on 29/09/2023 and 05/10/2023 is improper and illegal and is hereby set aside.
  • Order 41 Rule 4 of the CPR applied.
  • The costs of this application/appeal shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Purpose and Scope — Preservation of Status Quo
The purpose of a temporary injunction under Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules is to preserve the status quo and prevent wastage, damage, alienation, sale, removal or disposal of suit property until the questions in the main suit are investigated and finally disposed of.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Reversal of Status Quo — Impropriety
It is improper for a court to grant a temporary injunction that has the effect of reversing the status quo prevailing at the time of the application rather than preserving it. An order directing the removal of materials blocking a disputed access road reverses the status quo and is therefore improper.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Pre-determination of Main Suit — Prohibition
Where the granting of a temporary injunction has the effect of disposing of the whole suit or pre-determining the main questions in the suit, such an injunction ought not to be granted. A court cannot at a preliminary stage make a pronouncement that one party is committing wrongful acts before hearing the parties on the merits.
Constitutional Law — Right to Fair Hearing — Temporary Injunctions — Violation
A court cannot at a preliminary stage, before hearing the parties, make a pronouncement that one of the parties is committing wrongful acts of trespass or other wrongful acts. To do so is a contravention of the fundamental non-derogable right to a fair hearing embodied in Articles 28 and 44 of the Constitution of Uganda.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Geiisa v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] 1 EA 358
  • Uganda Moslem Supreme Council v Sheik Kassim Mulumba [1980] HCB 110

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Madrine_Ssanyu_v_Makanga_David_(Misc._Applic._Appeal_No_3072_of_2023)_[2025]_UGHCLD_356_(31_October_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.