Wakilii

Muljibhai Madhvan & Co.Ltd v Madchan International Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No.607 of 1990)

High Court · [1990] UGHC 2 · 1990 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction in civil suit
Decision
Temporary injunction granted to preserve status quo pending resolution of 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 defendants from selling mortgaged properties, finding that the applicant established a prima facie case regarding the legality of the mortgage, would suffer irreparable injury through loss of workers' accommodation, and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo until the dispute was resolved.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted to preserve status quo pending resolution of main suit

Facts

The plaintiff, a registered proprietor of approximately nine houses used as workers' quarters, sought a temporary injunction to prevent their sale. The first defendant had mortgaged these properties to the second defendant bank to secure a loan. Due to the first defendant's failure to repay, the bank threatened to sell the houses. The plaintiff contended the mortgage was illegal on two grounds: first, it was executed by one Meena who purported to be a director but was not; second, the properties were expropriated to government under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 at the time of the mortgage, requiring ministerial consent. Evidence showed a Repossession Certificate issued to EMCO Ltd in 1985 was cancelled by the Deputy Minister of Finance in April 1987, before the mortgage was executed in July 1987.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for temporary injunction met the procedural requirements under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success in the main suit.
  3. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the temporary injunction were not granted.
  4. Whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Temporary injunction granted restraining the defendants, their agents or servants from selling or disposing of or in any way interfering with the applicant's possession and ownership of the properties listed in Schedule A until the dispute between the parties is investigated and finalised.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant
For an applicant to be granted a temporary injunction, the applicant must show: (1) a prima facie case with a probability of success in the main suit; (2) that unless the temporary injunction is granted the applicant will suffer irreparable injury meaning substantial injury which cannot adequately be compensated by an award of damages; and (3) that the balance of convenience favours the grant.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Purpose
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo in the matter in dispute until the question under investigation in the main suit is finally disposed of.
Civil Procedure — Prima Facie Case — Definition
A prima facie case means a serious triable issue which, on the evidence available at the interlocutory stage, would entitle the applicant to judgment if the main suit goes to trial without additional evidence.
Property Law — Mortgages — Legality — Expropriated Property
A mortgage executed over properties expropriated to government under the Expropriated Properties Act 1982 without the consent of the Minister of Finance raises a serious triable issue as to the legality of the mortgage agreement.
Civil Procedure — Irreparable Injury — Loss of Accommodation
Loss of residential or commercial accommodation in areas where such accommodation is scarce constitutes irreparable injury that cannot adequately be compensated by an award of damages.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Jurisdiction — Section 101 Civil Procedure Act
The inherent jurisdiction under Section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act can only be invoked to meet a situation for which no express remedial provision exists under the law, but where an application is properly before the court, the court may invoke this power to meet the ends of justice.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (12)

  • Sergent v Patel (1949) 16 EACA 63
  • Noor Mohamod Jan Mohamed v K. Madhoni (1953) 20 EACA 8
  • Giela v Casman Brown & Co Ltd (1973) EA 358
  • Nsubuga and Anor v Mutawe (1974) EA 487
  • Buikwe Estate Coffee Works Ltd and 2 others v S. Lutabi and Anor (1962) EA 328
  • Salume Makasa v Y. Bukenya (1966) EA 433
  • Kigonya v AG (1966) EA 463
  • Jooman Jaffer v Bhambra (Court of Appeal No. 3 of 1967) EACA 326
  • Rawal v Mombasa Hardware Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 10 of 1968) EACA 392
  • Bentley v Smith (1974) 2 All ER 653
  • N. Jayant Madhavni v E.A Holdings Ltd and Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 1181 of 1988)
  • Alfonse Odido v Label EA Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 363 of 1987)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muljibhai Madhvan & Co.Ltd v Madchan International Ltd & Anor (Civil Suit No.607 of 1990) [1990] UGHC 2 (28 September 1990)
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.