Wakilii

Mugerwa Kadiri & Another V Kalasinga Mawazi & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 335 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHC 9 · 2019 Injunction Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising out of civil suit for trespass and ownership of land
Decision
Temporary injunction granted with conditions pending determination of the main suit

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 High Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from carrying out any economic activity on the disputed land until determination of the main suit. The court found that the applicants had disclosed a prima facie case on the question of ownership, that continuous excavation of stones would cause irreparable damage difficult to quantify, and that preservation of the status quo was necessary for the court to fully investigate the ownership dispute. The respondents were allowed to remain in possession but prohibited from grading, quarrying, excavating stones, building, subdividing, selling, or otherwise dealing in the land.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted with conditions pending determination of the main suit

Facts

The applicants claimed ownership of unregistered land with rocks/stones in Bugunga Village, Bujiri district, alleging it formed part of the estate of their deceased relative Kafero Kabibu. The respondents were in possession and continuously excavating and removing stones from the land. The first respondent claimed the land was received as a gift inter vivos in 1976 from another relative, the late Mubale Wakatwe, and that any share the deceased may have had was sold in the 1970s to offset costs of litigation. The parties share common ancestry and the ownership dispute centres on succession and the validity of an alleged gift. The applicants sought a temporary injunction to stop the respondents' activities pending determination of the main suit in which they claim trespass, vacant possession, damages, and a permanent injunction.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants have shown a prima facie case with a probability of success in the main suit.
  2. Whether the applicants are likely to suffer irreparable damage if the temporary injunction is denied.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience favours granting the temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Application for temporary injunction allowed with conditions.
  • Respondents to remain in possession of the suit land but to desist from carrying out any economic activity on it.
  • Temporary injunction issued restraining the respondents, their agents and/or any persons deriving title or authority from them from grading, quarrying/excavating stones, building/developing, subdividing, selling, or otherwise dealing in the suit land until the main suit is finally determined by this Court or until further orders of the Court.
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Standard Required
In considering whether an applicant has shown a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, the court need only be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried. The applicant is required at this stage to show a prima facie case and a probability of success, but not success itself.
Temporary Injunctions — Purpose — Preservation of Status Quo
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo in respect of the matter in dispute until determination of the whole dispute, so as to allow the court time and space to exhaustively handle the matters in issue in the main suit with no disruption on the ground that would result in irreparable damage.
Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Damage — Continuous Excavation of Natural Resources
Where a respondent is continuously excavating and removing stones from disputed land, such activity is difficult to quantify and can affect the quantification of damages if the applicant's claim succeeds. A temporary injunction may be granted to preserve the land in its current state to prevent the court's decision from being rendered moot.
Temporary Injunctions — Conditions — Possession Without Economic Activity
A court may grant a temporary injunction on terms that allow the respondent to remain in possession of disputed property but restrain the respondent from carrying out any economic activity on it, including grading, quarrying, building, subdividing, or selling, pending determination of the ownership dispute.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (7)

  • E.L.T. Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji A.N. Katende (1985) HCB 43
  • Commodity Trading Industries v Uganda Maize Industries and another [2001-2005] HCB 118
  • American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Francis Babumba and 2 others v Erisa Bunjo (High Court Civil Suit No. 697 of 1999)
  • Robert Kavuma v M/S Hotel International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown Co., Ltd (1973) 1 EA 358
  • Prof. Peter Anyang Nyongo & others v The Attorney General of Kenya & Others (East African Court of Justice Case Ref. No. 1 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugerwa Kadiri & Another V Kalasinga Mawazi & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 335 of 2018) [2019] UGHC 9 (29 May 2019)
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.