Wakilii

Makerere University v Namusisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 658 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGHCLD 74 · 2013 Application Granted — Injunction Issued AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from land dispute
Decision
Temporary injunction granted restraining respondent from specified activities on disputed land pending determination of main suit

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 a temporary injunction should be granted where the applicant demonstrates serious issues to be tried, a risk of irreparable injury, and that the balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo. Where property (mature trees and structures) is being damaged pending resolution of a land ownership dispute, and such damage cannot be adequately compensated in damages if the applicant ultimately succeeds, the court will restrain the specific activities causing waste or alteration of the property's status quo.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted restraining respondent from specified activities on disputed land pending determination of main suit

Facts

Makerere University claimed ownership of land comprised in FRV 52 Folio 25 Makindye measuring approximately 14 acres, which it acquired from Makerere College Council under the Makerere University (Interim Provisions) Act 1970. The land had been owned without disturbance since 1938. In April 2013, the respondent began making adverse claims, asserting the land belonged to the estate of the late Princess Namirembe Hilda Bwanga Bwamirembe and was a Buganda Kingdom heritage site. The respondent, accompanied by armed police and workers, entered the land and allegedly cut down mature trees (over 60 years old), removed concrete boundary pillars, and damaged houses. In July 2013, further destruction occurred when windows and doors were removed from houses. The respondent denied the destruction, claiming she was only maintaining the heritage site by tending the forest and that the structures were old and dilapidated. She asserted her right as administratrix of the estate and custodian of the heritage site.

Issues

  1. Whether the circumstances of the case warrant the grant of an order for a temporary injunction.
  2. Whether the Applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated the conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Temporary injunction issued restraining the Respondent and/or her agents from cutting trees on the suit land.
  • Temporary injunction issued restraining the Respondent and/or her agents from destroying houses or any other property of the Applicant on the suit land.
  • Respondent restrained from wasting or threatening to waste the suit land pending final determination of the main suit.
  • Respondent restrained from alienating or altering the status quo of the suit land pending final determination of the main suit.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Purpose and Conditions for Grant
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter pending final determination of the case. An applicant must demonstrate: (a) serious issues to be tried, (b) that the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is refused, and (c) that the balance of convenience favours granting the order.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Meaning of Irreparable Injury
Irreparable injury does not mean physical impossibility of repairing the injury, but refers to substantial or material injury that cannot be adequately atoned for in damages. Where mature trees of significant age are cut down, the injury cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms and constitutes irreparable injury.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo to be Preserved
Status quo denotes the existing state of affairs before a given point in time. In land matters, the relevant consideration is the point at which acts complained of occurred. Where acts of destruction or waste have occurred, the status quo to be preserved is that prevailing before such activities commenced.
Civil Procedure — Affidavit Evidence — Presumption Where Facts Not Denied
Where facts are sworn to in an affidavit and are not specifically denied or rebutted by the opposite party, the presumption is that such facts are accepted. General denials or semantic recharacterisation of admitted activities do not constitute specific rebuttal.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience and Risk of Mandatory Injunction
In assessing balance of convenience, allowing activities that waste or alter property to continue unfettered would amount to granting a mandatory injunction against the applicant. Where one party would suffer permanent loss (such as mature trees cut down) while the other would suffer only temporary inconvenience from restraint, the balance of convenience favours the former.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (9)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji A.N. Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (High Court Civil Suit No. 630 of 1993)
  • Erisa Rainbow Musoke v Ahamada Kezala [1987] HCB 81
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co [1973] EA 358
  • Tonny Wasswa v Joseph Kakooza [1987] HCB 79
  • NTCO Ltd v Hope Nyakairu [1992-1993] HCB 135
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (High Court Civil Suit No. 630 of 1993)
  • Francome v Mirror Group Newspapers [1984] 1WLR 892
  • Massa v Achen [1978] HCB 297

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Makerere University v Namusisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 658 of 2013) [2013] UGHCLD 74 (29 August 2013)
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.