Wakilii

Mascot Logistics Limited v Nassiwa Hadijah and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 649 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 69 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from execution proceedings following ex parte judgment in civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed; applicant must prove claim at trial before asserting rights over estate properties

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 court dismissed an application for a temporary injunction restraining administrators of an estate from dealing with estate properties. The ex parte judgment on which the execution proceedings were based had been set aside in a consolidated application. The applicant no longer held a subsisting decree and could not establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury, or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The applicant must now prove its claim afresh at trial before asserting rights over the estate properties.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicant must prove claim at trial before asserting rights over estate properties

Facts

The applicant obtained an ex parte judgment in Civil Suit No. 70 of 2023 against the respondents as administrators of the estate of the late Ssesebwe Vincent Salongo for recovery of UGX 371,837,704 plus general damages, interest, and costs, totalling UGX 469,324,736.64. The applicant filed execution proceedings seeking to attach and sell estate properties. The respondents filed applications to stay execution and set aside the ex parte judgment. While those applications were pending, the applicant alleged that the respondents were inspecting the attached properties with various persons, apparently intending to distribute or dispose of them, thereby threatening to defeat execution. The applicant filed this application for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from dealing with the properties. The court consolidated related applications and first determined the application to set aside the ex parte judgment, which it granted. This ruling addresses the injunction application in light of that decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant can maintain an application for a temporary injunction after the ex parte judgment in the main suit has been set aside.
  2. Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction.
  3. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.
  4. Where the balance of convenience lies.

Orders

  • Miscellaneous Application No. 649 of 2025 is hereby dismissed.
  • The costs of this application shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Effect of Setting Aside Underlying Judgment
Where an ex parte judgment forming the basis of execution proceedings is set aside, an applicant who was previously a decree-holder no longer has a subsisting decree on which to anchor a prima facie case for a temporary injunction to protect specific properties against execution. The applicant's prima facie case can only rest on the prospects of success in the main suit at trial, which is insufficient to warrant an injunction at the interlocutory stage.
Temporary Injunctions — Three Conditions for Grant
The conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction are: (a) the applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success; (b) the applicant must show that it would suffer irreparable injury that cannot adequately be compensated by an award of damages if the injunction is not granted; and (c) if the court is in doubt on the first two conditions, it will decide the application on the balance of convenience.
Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Potential Right of Plaintiff
The potential right of a plaintiff who may or may not succeed at trial is adequately protected by the trial process itself. The mere possibility that an estate may be administered in the ordinary course during the pendency of the trial does not, without more evidence, constitute irreparable injury of the kind that warrants a temporary injunction.
Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Estate Administration
The balance of convenience does not favour granting an injunction to freeze estate properties for the duration of a trial where the application was originally premised on a judgment that has been set aside. It would not be just to restrain estate administrators and prevent beneficiaries from receiving the benefit of estate assets on account of a claim that has yet to be proved at trial. The applicant must establish its claim through the proper trial process before asserting rights over estate properties.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • E.L.T. Kiyimba Kagwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Jakisa & Ors v Kyambogo University (Miscellaneous Application No. 549 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mascot Logistics Limited v Nassiwa Hadijah and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 649 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 69 (13 March 2026)
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.