Mukaaya v Ssekamwa (Civil Application 1146 of 2023)

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.

Holding

Sitting as a single Justice, the Court held that the Notice of Appeal was incompetent because it cited the civil appeal registration number and parties rather than the particulars of the suit subject of the appeal, contrary to Rule 76(5), and because there was no proof of proper service. A competent Notice of Appeal is a sine qua non for interim relief. On the merits, the suit property had already been alienated to a third party, so the status quo ante could not be preserved and interim orders would issue in vain. The application was accordingly dismissed, each party bearing its own costs.

Outcome

Application for an interim injunction dismissed

Facts

The applicant sought an interim order restraining the respondent from selling, transferring or otherwise dealing with land comprised in Busiro Block 40 Plot 50 at Lutisi, Namayumba, Wakiso district, pending determination of a substantive application for a temporary injunction. The applicant claimed he remained in physical possession and cultivated seasonal crops on the land, which he said was in imminent danger of sale to third parties, exposing him to irreparable damage. The respondent contended that the applicant ceased to be in possession on 2 May 2023 and was evicted on 4 May 2023, that the status quo had since changed, and that the land had already been sold to a third party, Mr. Ronald Mutesasira. The respondent also objected that the Notice of Appeal had never been served and offended the Court's Rules. The applicant maintained, including by a letter of eviction dated 12 October 2023, that he remained in occupation.

Issues

1. Whether the Notice of Appeal relied on by the applicant complied with Rule 76(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules and was competent.
2. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim injunction pending determination of the substantive application for a temporary injunction.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I 13-10 r.76(5)
• Civil Procedure Act s.98

Cases cited (6)

• Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd (1973) EA 358
• Herbert Semakula Musoke & Anor v Lawrence Nabamba & 2 Others (Civil Application No. 22 of 2019)
• Theodore Ssekikubo & 2 Others v The Attorney General & 4 Others
• Uganda Revenue Authority v Njubuga Guster & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2018)
• Patrick Kaumba Wiltshire v Ismail Dabule (Civil Application No. 3 of 2018)
• Glad VS Mukulav Rosemary Nabukenya Administratrix of the Estate of the late Maria Lwa Nnan... Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2020

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