Wakilii

Margaret Kasirye and Another v Kabogoza Dallaus and Another (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 33 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 319 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Registrar's ruling refusing to grant temporary injunction in terms prayed
Decision
Appeal dismissed and Registrar's orders upheld

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Registrar's decision. The court held that granting the temporary injunction as prayed would amount to prematurely evicting the respondents, who were in possession, before the main suit was disposed of. The Registrar's order restraining all parties from creating third party interests protected both parties' interests pending disposal of the main suit.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed and Registrar's orders upheld

Facts

The appellants filed Civil Suit No. 287 of 2022 and Miscellaneous Application No. 469 of 2022 seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their suit kibanja. The respondents claimed they purchased 6.5 acres of the kibanja from the appellants' late brother, Kigozi John Baptist. The first respondent sold part of the land to the second respondent, who graded it. The Registrar granted a limited temporary injunction restraining all parties from creating third party interests but declined to grant the full injunction prayed for, finding that the respondents were in possession. The appellants appealed, arguing the Registrar erred in finding the respondents were in possession and in refusing the full injunction.

Issues

  1. Whether the Learned Registrar erred in holding that the respondents were in possession of the suit kibanja.
  2. Whether the Learned Registrar erred in refusing to grant the temporary injunction in the terms prayed.
  3. Whether it is in the interest of justice to grant a temporary injunction in the terms prayed by the appellants.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The Ruling and orders of the Learned Registrar in Miscellaneous Application No. 469 of 2022 are hereby upheld.
  • The costs of this appeal shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals from Registrar — Requirements for competent appeal — Attachment of ruling or order appealed against
When lodging any kind of appeal, it is a requirement to attach the order, decree, ruling or judgment being appealed against, otherwise the appellate court is unable to tell what is being appealed against and the appeal is rendered incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Test for grant — American Cyanamid principles
In an application for a temporary injunction, the applicant must show: (1) a prima facie case with a probability of success in the main suit; (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable damage if the injunction is denied; and (3) if court is in doubt as to the above, the balance of convenience must favour the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable injury — Meaning and scope
Irreparable injury does not mean that there must not be physical possibility of repairing the injury but means that the injury must be substantial or material, one that cannot be adequately compensated for in damages.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Balance of convenience — Duty to protect both parties pending disposal of main suit
It is the duty of court when handling applications for a temporary injunction to protect the interests of both parties pending the disposal of the substantive suit. Balance of convenience literally means that if the risk of doing injustice is going to make the applicants suffer, then probably the balance of convenience is favorable to them.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Grant must not alter status quo or amount to premature eviction
A temporary injunction should not be granted where it would permit the applicants to evict the respondents who are in possession before the main suit is disposed of, as that would alter the status quo of the suit property.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • American Cyanamid v Ethicon Limited (1975) AC 396
  • Francis Babumba and 2 Others v Erisa Bunjo (HCCS No. 697 of 1999)
  • Robert Kavuma v M/s Hotel International (SCCA No. 8 of 1990)
  • Mbambu Stella v Monday Nicholas (HCCS No. 10 of 2016)
  • Godfrey Ssekitoleko v Mutabaazi (2001-2005) HCB 80
  • Gapco (U) Ltd v Kaweesa Badru (HCMA No. 259 of 2013)

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.

Margaret_Kasirye_and_Another_v_Kabogoza_Dallaus_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Appeal_No._33_of_2023)_[2024]_UGHCLD_319_(4_October_2024)
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.