Wakilii

Meera Investments Ltd v National Water & Sewerage Corp. Ltd and Another (Misc. Application No. 110 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHC 18 · 2016 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from main suit for trespass
Decision
Application for temporary injunction dismissed

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 applicant failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable injury that could not be adequately compensated in damages, as the types of remedies sought (restoration, punitive, exemplary, aggravated and general damages) could be adequately compensated. The balance of convenience favoured the respondents and the public interest in completing the Kampala Sanitation Program Phase 1, a project serving 2 million people and protecting Lake Victoria from pollution. Public health considerations and environmental protection outweighed the applicant's proprietary interests. Application for temporary injunction dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed

Facts

Meera Investments Ltd, the registered owner of land at Plot 6 Hill Crescent and other plots at Mukabya Close, Banda-Kampala, alleged that National Water & Sewerage Corporation Ltd contracted Sogea Satom Ltd to carry out sewerage works in surrounding areas. In August 2016, the contractors entered the suit land without authority, stopped and chased away the applicant's employees, positioned trucks and machinery, excavated soil, dug manholes, dumped marram, and laid concrete iron support structures for sewer pipes, altering the landscape. The applicant protested but the respondents continued the works. The 1st respondent was implementing the Kampala Sanitation Program Phase 1 on behalf of the Government of Uganda to improve sewerage in Kampala City and protect Lake Victoria from pollution. The suit land was earmarked as one of the properties through which pipes would be laid. The respondent entered under statutory powers. The project was intended to serve about 2 million people, was funded by the African Development Bank and German KFW, and was scheduled for completion in July 2017.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has shown that it has a prima facie case with a probability of success in the main suit.
  2. Whether the applicant has shown that it is likely to suffer irreparable damages if the injunction is denied.
  3. In whose favour is the balance of convenience.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Grounds for Grant — Prima Facie Case
When considering an application for a temporary injunction, a prima facie case with a probability of success means no more than that the court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried. The applicant is required to show a prima facie case and a probability of success but not success itself, as the evidence at this stage is incomplete affidavit evidence not tested by cross-examination.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Adequacy of Damages
Irreparable injury does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means that the injury must be a substantial or material one that cannot be adequately compensated in damages. Where the remedies sought (restoration, punitive, exemplary, aggravated and general damages for trespass) can be adequately compensated in monetary terms, the applicant has not proved irreparable injury warranting an injunction.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Public Interest
In determining the balance of convenience for a temporary injunction, the court must weigh the competing interests. Where granting an injunction would halt a major public sanitation project serving 2 million people, funded by international development partners, and aimed at protecting a critical water source from pollution, and where refusal would leave the applicant with an adequate remedy in damages, the balance of convenience favours refusing the injunction despite the applicant's prima facie case in trespass.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (10)

  • Commodity Trading Industries v Uganda Maize Industries and Another ([2001-2005] HCB 118)
  • Godfrey Sekitoleko and Others v Seezi Mutabazi ([2001-2005] HCB Vol. 380)
  • American Cyanamide Co v Ethicon Ltd ([1975] AC 396)
  • Francis Babumba and 2 Others v Erisa Bunjo (HCCS No. 697 of 1999)
  • Robert Kavuma v Hotel International (SCCA No. 8 of 1990)
  • Nasser Kiingi and Another v Attorney General and 2 Others (Constitutional Application No. 29 of 2012)
  • Prof. Peter Anyang Nyong'O and Others v The Attorney General of Kenya and Others (East African Court of Justice Case Ref. No. 1 of 2005)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa (supra)
  • Commodity Trading Industries v Uganda Maize Trading Industries ([2001-2005] HCB 119)
  • Ananias Tumukunde v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition Application No. 3 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Meera Investments Ltd v National Water & Sewerage Corp. Ltd and Another (Misc. Application No. 110 of 2016) [2016] UGHC 18 (31 October 2016)
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.