MP Electronics Limited & Another v Ashishi & 2 Others (Civil Application 1266 of 2023)

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 dismissed an application for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from taking possession of mortgaged properties pending an intended appeal. The court held that the order the applicants sought to appeal arose from the dismissal of an application for review of a consent judgment, which is not appealable as of right under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. At the time of the application the applicants had no leave to appeal, and a separate application for leave had since been dismissed by the High Court. As there was no competent appeal pending, a temporary injunction in aid of the appeal could not be granted, and the application was found to be without merit.

Outcome

Application for a temporary injunction dismissed for want of a competent pending appeal

Facts

DFCU Bank sued the Commissioner Land Registration challenging the Commissioner's power to hold a public hearing over defunct Crane Bank mortgages registered on the second applicant's properties. Before an inter partes hearing, DFCU and the Commissioner entered a consent judgment declaring DFCU the lawful assignee of the Crane Bank mortgage charges and registered mortgagee, enabling transfer of the suit properties. The applicants applied to set aside the consent and for a temporary injunction; that application was dismissed. The applicants filed a notice of appeal and sought a temporary injunction restraining the respondents, who had purchased and registered the suit properties, from taking possession or evicting the applicants pending the intended appeal. The order the applicants sought to challenge had dismissed an application for review of the consent judgment. When the application was filed, no leave to appeal had been obtained; a subsequent High Court application for leave to appeal was dismissed on 5 June 2024, leaving no appeal pending.

Issues

1. Whether there was a competent appeal pending before the Court of Appeal, given that the order sought to be appealed dismissed an application for review and was not appealable as of right.
2. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction pending appeal.

Orders

• Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 43
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rule 1(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 44 Rule 1(2)
• Land Act s.91

Cases cited (2)

• Robert Kavuma v Hotel International (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
• Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

• Pio Kigundu and Another v Sekamwa Livingstone and Others (Civil Application No.713 of 2024) followed
• MP Electronics Limited & Another v Kamani & 2 Others (Civil Application 614 of 2024)
• DFCU Bank Limited & 3 Others v MP Electronics Limited & Another (Miscellaneous Application 124 of 2024)

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