Misaki v Musiime (Civil Application 147 of 2024)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from evicting or interfering with the applicant pending the determination of Civil Appeal No. 887 of 2023. Applying the conditions in Robert Kavuma v Hotel International, the court held that the applicant, who had annexed a memorandum of appeal raising arguable questions, had shown a prima facie case with a probability of success. As the applicant was in possession of the suit land since 1987, he would suffer irreparable injury not adequately compensable in damages, and the balance of convenience favoured him. The injunction issued, with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted, preserving the status quo pending determination of the appeal

Facts

The applicant claimed to have occupied the suit land since around 1986-1987, having bought it from the late Gershom Rwakishaya, and to have raised his children and grandchildren there. He was entered on the title in 2002. A dispute with the respondent over the land led to proceedings in the High Court, where a settlement was reportedly reached but later challenged. Following a High Court decision adverse to the applicant, he lodged Civil Appeal No. 887 of 2023 and brought this application for a temporary injunction, fearing execution and eviction. The respondent contended that the land (formerly Plot 17/Plot 4, now Plot 77) had been subdivided and no longer existed, that the applicant occupied it fraudulently, and that the application was incompetent and served out of time. The respondent did not dispute that the applicant remained in possession of the suit land.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success on the pending appeal.
2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable damage if the temporary injunction were not granted.
3. Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the temporary injunction.
4. Whether the application was incompetent for being served out of time and for failure to annex the notice of appeal.

Orders

• A temporary injunction is issued preserving the status quo, restraining the respondent and/or heirs and agents from harassing, selling off, locking out, and/or evicting the applicants, their family members, heirs and/or agents, pending the final determination and disposal of Civil Appeal No. 887 of 2023.
• The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the Civil Appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.76

Cases cited (5)

• Robert Kavuma v Hotel International (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
• Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
• Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter & 5 Others [2013] eKLR
• Giella v Cassman Brown & Co [1973] EA 358
• Jayndrakumar Devechand Devani v Haridas Vallabhdas Bhadresa & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1971)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Namatovu Ramula and Others v Modern Electronics Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1108 of 2025)
• Tabula v Kange & Malomba (Miscellaneous Application 107 of 2024)

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