Wakilii

Nakagiri Maureen and Another v Nabuwufu Winbroda and Others (Civil Appeal 4 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1326 · 2025 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from the decision of the Assistant Deputy Registrar dismissing an application for a temporary injunction
Decision
Appeal allowed; temporary injunction granted to preserve status quo of estate land pending determination 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 allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants had established a prima facie case warranting a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo of disputed estate land pending determination of the main suit. The court found that the Assistant Registrar erred in concluding that no prima facie case existed and that the status quo had already changed. The balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction in this family estate matter.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; temporary injunction granted to preserve status quo of estate land pending determination of main suit

Facts

The appellants, claiming to be beneficiaries of the estate of the late Nakalema Emiliana, sued the respondents seeking declarations and orders relating to land comprised in Buddu Block 466 Plots 39, 40, 42, 43 and 44 at Kasaka, Masaka. They alleged that their late mother Nakalema Emiliana was entitled to a share of the estate of the late Emilio Luwaga (her father) but died before the land could be transferred to her. The first respondent, as administrator of Emilio Luwaga's estate, allegedly obtained fresh letters of administration and redistributed Nakalema's share. The appellants filed an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from dealing with the land pending determination of the main suit. The Assistant Deputy Registrar dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case and that the status quo had already changed because the second respondent had sold portions of the land to third parties. The appellants appealed this decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Assistant Registrar erred in fact and law when she disallowed the application for a temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Decision of the Assistant Deputy Registrar dated 23rd January 2024 set aside.
  • Temporary injunction granted restraining the respondents from transferring, selling, alienating, mortgaging or in any way dealing with land comprised in Buddu Block 466 Plots 39, 40, 42, 43 and 44 all formerly Plot 27 land at Kasaka, Masaka until final disposal of HCT-06-LD-CS-0096-2023.
  • Status quo on the suit land to be maintained pending final disposal of the main suit.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Test for Establishing
To obtain a temporary injunction, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of a prima facie case with a real prospect of success by showing that there is a serious issue for trial and that the claim is neither frivolous nor vexatious. A prima facie case is established when the court is satisfied, upon examining the pleadings, that the claim is serious and not frivolous or vexatious in nature.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo — Determination and Preservation
The expression status quo denotes the prevailing factual or legal position as it exists at a particular point in time, signifying the circumstances that the court seeks to preserve pending determination of the parties' rights. Where parties dispute the status quo, the court must preserve the position existing at the time of filing the application. The court's first step in applications for temporary injunctions is to determine what status quo exists at the time of hearing.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant
The conditions for granting a temporary injunction are: (i) there must be a serious issue to be tried with a likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed; (ii) the court's intervention must be necessary to prevent irreparable harm before the plaintiff's legal rights are determined; and (iii) on the balance of convenience, the plaintiff would suffer greater hardship if the injunction is withheld than the defendant would suffer if it is granted.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
As a first appellate court, it is the duty of the court to subject the trial record to fresh and exhaustive scrutiny, re-evaluate the evidence, and draw its own conclusions, while mindful that it did not observe the witnesses. The appellate court may interfere with findings of fact where material circumstances were overlooked or credibility was misappraised.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — When Considered
The court should only turn to the balance of convenience where uncertainty exists as to whether a prima facie case has been established or irreparable harm demonstrated. Where a prima facie case is established in a land matter, the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction given that finality is a desirable outcome in all land cases.

Cases cited (15)

  • Father Nanensio Begumisa v Eric Tiberaga (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2000)
  • [1980] HCB 81
  • Nyero v Olweny (Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2018)
  • Kaggwa v Ampire (Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2019)
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (High Court Civil Suit No. 630 of 1993)
  • [1973] 1 EA 358
  • [1999] 1 EA 341
  • [1972] EA 420
  • Kisakye v Ameu and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 142 of 2022)
  • [2001-2005] HCB 80
  • Alley Route Ltd v UDB Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 634 of 2006)
  • [2000] 2 EA 285
  • Robert Kavuma v M/s Hotel International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
  • [1975] UKHL 1
  • Mandatally Allibhai Popat v Master Managers & Traders Ltd (High Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakagiri Maureen and Another v Nabuwufu Winbroda and Others (Civil Appeal 4 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1326 (25 November 2025)
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.