Wakilii

Nabitindo v Nasolo & Anor (Ma No. 516 of 2011)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 233 · 2012 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from pending civil suit
Decision
Application for temporary injunction dismissed with costs to the respondents

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

Held that an application for temporary injunction must establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and that the balance of convenience favours the applicant. The court found that although a triable issue existed, the applicant's claimed injuries were adequately compensable in damages and that preserving the status quo meant maintaining the respondents' possession. Restraining the respondents would alter rather than maintain the status quo. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicant claimed ownership of approximately one acre of land (kibanja) in Kibuga Block 12 Plot 346 and 347 at Mengo Kisenyi. She alleged that between 2002 and 2005, the respondents forcefully evicted her and demolished her structures, offering compensation of UGX 5,000,000 which she refused. The respondents claimed that the 2nd respondent had mailo interest in the land and had lawfully leased it to the 1st respondent, and that compensation was paid to the applicant's father as the lawful occupant. By the time of the application, the 1st respondent had been in possession of the suit land since the 2009 demolition, had fenced it off, and was in advanced stages of commencing construction. The applicant sought a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from accessing, entering, evicting, alienating, disposing of or interfering with the suit property pending final determination of Civil Suit No. 405 of 2010.

Issues

  1. Whether there is a pending suit before the court.
  2. Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with probability of success.
  3. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury not adequately compensable in damages if the injunction is not granted.
  4. Whether the status quo should be preserved by granting the temporary injunction.
  5. Where the balance of convenience lies between the parties.

Orders

  • Application for temporary injunction dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant
For a temporary injunction to be granted, the applicant must establish a prima facie case with probability of success, that the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable damage which would not easily be compensated in damages, and if the court is in doubt, it will decide the question on the balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Prima Facie Case — Standard of Proof
Establishing a prima facie case does not mean the applicant must succeed, but rather that there should be a triable issue raising a prima facie case for adjudication.
Civil Procedure — Irreparable Injury — Compensability in Damages
Irreparable injury does not mean that there must not be physical possibility of repairing injury, but rather that the injury must be substantial or material, that is, one that cannot be adequately compensated in damages. Where the main suit seeks compensation and damages that would adequately atone the injury claimed, the injury is not irreparable.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo Preservation
In exercising the discretion of whether or not to grant a temporary injunction, the court does not determine the legal rights to property but merely preserves it in its actual condition until the main suit is disposed of. Preserving the status quo means maintaining the current state of affairs, not altering it to favour a party not in possession.
Civil Procedure — Balance of Convenience — Assessment Factors
The balance of convenience favours the party who is currently in possession and registered as proprietor. Granting an injunction that would prevent the possessing party from accessing, developing or using the land would cause greater hardship than refusing the injunction to a party neither in possession nor currently registered as proprietor.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (7)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Katende (HCB 1985)
  • Besigye v National Housing and Construction Company Ltd (HCB 2007)
  • Wanendeya v Norconsult (HCB 1987)
  • Devon v Bhades (EA 1972)
  • Commodity Trading Industries v Uganda Maize Trading Industries (HCB 2001-2005)
  • Sekitoleko & Ors v Mutabaazi & Ors (HCB 2001-2005)
  • Wasswa v Kakooza (HCB 1987)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabitindo v Nasolo & Anor (Ma No. 516 of 2011) [2012] UGHC 233 (8 November 2012)
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.