Wakilii

Mulumba v Bugingo & 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1555 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCFD 23 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of temporary injunction Order arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 179 of 2022, which itself arose from Civil Suit No. 102 of 2022
Decision
Application for review dismissed; temporary injunction remains in force pending disposal 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 dismissed the Applicant's application for review of a temporary injunction Order. The Court held that the Applicant, though a lessee of the suit property, was not an aggrieved party because the temporary injunction was not a final decision depriving him of his title but merely preserved the status quo pending the main suit's disposal. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record, as the Order clearly applied to the Respondents' transferees, including the Applicant. The issue of who was in physical possession when the Order was granted required evidence and could not be resolved through review.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed; temporary injunction remains in force pending disposal of the main suit

Facts

The Applicant purchased property (formerly LRV 985 Folio 8 Land at Rubaga Kibuga Block 1, Plot 580) from the 7th and 8th Respondents on 2 December 2021 and was registered as lessee on 6 May 2022. The 1st-6th Respondents had filed Civil Suit No. 102 of 2022 against the 7th and 8th Respondents challenging the estate of the late Philomena Arombo Obol. On 30 March 2022, the Deputy Registrar renewed an interim order against the 7th and 8th Respondents prohibiting sale of the suit property. On 12 May 2022, a temporary injunction was granted prohibiting the 7th and 8th Respondents, their transferees, agents, and land brokers from selling, marketing, occupying, or pledging the suit residential holding until disposal of the main suit. The Applicant, who was not a party to the original suit, sought review of the temporary injunction, claiming he was evicted and the property was padlocked by the 1st-6th Respondents. Both the Applicant and the 1st-6th Respondents claimed to be in physical possession of the property.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant is an aggrieved party with standing to seek review of the temporary injunction Order
  2. Whether there is a mistake manifest or error apparent on the face of the record in the temporary injunction Order granted on 12 May 2022
  3. Whether there is any other sufficient reason that warrants review by the Court

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Temporary injunction granted on 12 May 2022 subsists until final disposal of the main suit.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Review — Aggrieved Party — Test for Standing
To qualify as an aggrieved party for purposes of review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a person must have suffered a legal grievance, meaning the judgment or order must have wrongfully deprived the person of something or wrongfully affected their title or legal interest, and not merely preserved the status quo pending final determination.
Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument or a long drawn process of reasoning to establish. Where a view adopted by the court is a possible one, it cannot be an error apparent on the face of the record even though another view was also possible. Review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to challenge the merits of a decision but only irregularities in the process towards the decision.
Temporary Injunctions — Purpose and Effect
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the matter in the main suit is resolved. A temporary injunction is not a final decision of the Court and does not deprive a party of their title or interest in property but merely suspends certain activities pending final determination.
Temporary Injunctions — Application to Transferees
A temporary injunction prohibiting respondents and their transferees from dealing with property binds a purchaser who acquired the property from the respondents during the pendency of the suit, as the purchaser falls within the category of transferees expressly covered by the injunction order.
Review versus Judicial Review — Distinction
Review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules is distinct from judicial review under the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules. Review is concerned with correcting apparent errors or omissions on the part of the Court, while judicial review is concerned with challenging public bodies for acts which are illegal, irrational, and procedurally improper. The time limits applicable to judicial review do not apply to applications for review under the Civil Procedure Act.
Oaths — Form and Manner — Moslem Affiant Using 'Swear' Instead of 'Affirm'
The Oaths Act does not prescribe that a Moslem must use the word 'affirm' and a Christian must use the word 'swear' when taking an oath. Section 5 of the Oaths Act is silent on which specific words should be used by either a Moslem or a Christian while taking oath. The use of 'affirm' per Section 8 applies to a person who has objected to taking oath, not necessarily based on whether the person is Christian or Moslem. Where an affiant uses both 'affirm' and 'swear' in the same affidavit, this is a mere technicality that does not render the affidavit defective or a nullity if the intention was clearly to demonstrate that the affiant stands by the depositions made.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (16)

  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor [1982] HCB 11
  • Payless Supermarket Ltd v Dembe Trading Enterprise Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 101 of 2011)
  • V.G Keshwala T/A V.G Keshwala & Sons v MM Sheik Dawood (HCMA No. 0543 of 2011)
  • Sande Akuzewo v Jinja Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0006 of 2020)
  • Farm Inputs Care Centre Limited v Klein Karoo Seeds Marketing (Pty) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 0861 of 2021)
  • Busoga Growers Co-operative Union Ltd v Nsamba & Sons Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 123 of 2000)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdul Nasser Katende (Civil Suit No. 2109 of 1984) [1985] HCB 43
  • Mohammed Allibhai v Bukenya (SCCA No. 56 of 1996)
  • Tullow Uganda Ltd and Tullow Uganda Operators v Jackson Wabyona and Uganda Revenue Authority (HCMA No. 0197 of 2017)
  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1979] HCB 12
  • Attorney General & Others v Boniface Byanyima (HCMA No. 1789 of 2002)
  • Levi Outa v Uganda Transport Company [1995] HCB 340
  • MK Creditors Ltd v Owara Patrick (HCMA No. 0143 of 2015)
  • Moses Kasozi v Muhammad Batte & Others (Civil Appeal No. 0024 of 2020)
  • FX Mubuuke v U.E.B (HCMA No. 98 of 2005)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mulumba v Bugingo & 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1555 of 2023) [2024] UGHCFD 23 (24 April 2024)
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.