Mpangu & Anor v Nagawa Anor ([arising From Civil Suit No. 82 of 2013])
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 granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with land to which the applicants held registered certificates of title. The court held that the applicants demonstrated a prima facie case as the certificate of title constitutes conclusive evidence of ownership, that they faced irreparable injury, and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo pending determination of the main suit.
Outcome
Temporary injunction issued to preserve status quo pending determination of main suit
Facts
The applicants, Mpungu Paulo and Rachael Kemirembe, were registered proprietors of land comprised in Block 397 Plots 1604 and 1608, holding certificates of title. The respondents, Nagawa Agnes and Sebina Lawrence, entered the applicants' land, fenced it with barbed wire, and claimed ownership based on their assertion that their grandfather, Christopher Katumba, was the original registered proprietor who died in 1974 without selling or pledging the land. The applicants had engaged surveyors and architects, secured building plan approvals, and invested substantially over five years. They sought a temporary injunction to prevent further alienation of the land pending determination of the main suit regarding ownership.
Issues
- Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for grant of a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from wasting, damaging or alienating the disputed land.
Orders
- Application for temporary injunction granted.
- Respondents restrained from selling, alienating or otherwise disposing of the suit land until hearing and determination of the main case.
- Costs to be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.2
- Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.9
- Registration of Titles Act
Cases cited (4)
- American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
- Robert Kavuma v Hotel International (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
- Kiyimba Kagwa v Katende [1985] HCB
- Commodity Trading Industries v Uganda Maize Industries & Another [2001-2005] HCB 118
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.