Wakilii

Makondere v Kyenjojo District Local Government (HCT-01-CV-MA-0012-2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 275 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary mandatory injunction arising from pending civil suit
Decision
Application for temporary mandatory 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 High Court dismissed an application for a temporary mandatory injunction seeking reinstatement of an employee to the position of Town Clerk pending determination of the main suit. The court held that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case with high chances of success, did not demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages, and failed to show special circumstances warranting a mandatory injunction. The court applied the principle that courts should not force an employer to retake an employee the employer no longer wishes to engage.

Outcome

Application for temporary mandatory injunction dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant was appointed as Town Clerk/Principal Township Officer Scale U2 at Butiiti Town Council on 19 June 2023. The respondent did not effect pay changes on the payroll, prompting the applicant and 14 others to file Civil Suit No. 38 of 2024 seeking declarations and specific performance. On 11 February 2025, while the main suit was pending, the respondent rescinded the minute appointing the applicant as Town Clerk, purportedly demoting him without charge. The Public Service Commission had guided the Chief Administrative Officer to rescind the appointment on grounds that the applicant did not possess the requisite qualifications. The applicant was subsequently transferred to Kisojo Sub-county as Senior Assistant Secretary. The applicant sought a temporary mandatory injunction to restore his position as Town Clerk pending determination of the main suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with high chances of success warranting grant of a temporary mandatory injunction.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the mandatory injunction is not granted.
  3. Whether special circumstances exist to warrant the grant of a mandatory injunction.
  4. Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of a mandatory injunction.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Mandatory Injunctions — Standard of Proof
To obtain a mandatory injunction, an applicant must demonstrate a higher standard of proof than for a prohibitory injunction, including establishing a prima facie case with high chances of success, irreparable harm, the balance of convenience in their favour, and the existence of special circumstances.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Mandatory Injunctions — Distinction from Prohibitory Injunctions
A prohibitory injunction merely requires abstention from acting, whereas a mandatory injunction requires the taking of positive steps and may require the dismantling or destruction of something already erected or constructed, resulting in consequent waste of time, money and materials if it is ultimately established that the defendant was entitled to retain the erection. Mandatory injunctions are therefore granted with reluctance and only in exceptional and clearest cases.
Employment & Labour — Reinstatement — Court's Discretion — Employer's Wishes
A court of law should not use its powers to force an employer to retake an employee the employer no longer wishes to continue to engage. However, depending on the circumstances, an employee who is unfairly or unlawfully dismissed should be compensated adequately in accordance with the law.
Employment & Labour — Remedies — Adequacy of Damages
In employment matters, damages are usually an adequate remedy, since in deserving cases damages can even cater for lost and future earnings. An injunction can only be granted in cases where monetary compensation would afford an inadequate remedy to an injured party.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (9)

  • Dorab Cawasji Warden v Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors (1990) 2 SCC 117
  • Rashida Abdul Hanali & Anor v Sulaiman Adrisi (HCMA No. 11 of 2017)
  • E.I Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdul Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • R v Secretary of State for Transport Ex.p Factor Tame Ltd [1990] 2 AC 85
  • Zam Nambi v Bujjingo & 2 Ors (HCMA No. 1013 of 2015)
  • Shepherd Homes v Sandham [1970] 3 WLR 348
  • Kenya Breweries Limited & Another v Washingtone O. Okeyo (Civil Appeal No. 332 of 2000) [2002] 1 EA 109
  • Bank of Uganda v Betty Tinkamanyire (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Barclays Bank of Uganda v Godfrey Mubiru (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1998)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Makondere v Kyenjojo District Local Government (HCT-01-CV-MA-0012-2025) [2025] UGHC 275 (25 April 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.