Wakilii

Nakawooya v Segawa & 3 Ors (Ma No. 35 of 2011)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 9 · 2012 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising out of civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed as the suit property had already been sold

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 a temporary injunction cannot be granted where the status quo has already been disturbed. The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve matters in their actual condition until the main suit is disposed of. Where uncontested affidavit evidence established that the suit property had already been sold to a third party before the application was heard, there was no status quo to preserve and the application for a temporary injunction was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed as the suit property had already been sold

Facts

The applicant was the spouse of the first respondent, who was the registered proprietor of family land in Nateete, Kampala. Between 2005 and 2009, the applicant and first respondent built 11 houses on the land, some as matrimonial homes and others for renting. In February 2010, the first and second respondents mortgaged the property to Stanbic Bank for a credit facility of UGX 150,000,000 without the applicant's consent. The borrowers defaulted on the loan. The fourth respondent, acting on the bank's instructions, advertised the property for sale and issued eviction notices. The applicant sought a temporary injunction to restrain the sale and eviction. By the time of the hearing, affidavit evidence from the third and fourth respondents established that the property had already been sold to a third party on 2 February 2010. The applicant did not file a rejoinder to rebut this evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant was entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from selling, mortgaging, or evicting the applicant from the suit land.
  2. Whether there was a status quo to be preserved by way of temporary injunction where the suit property had already been sold to a third party.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Temporary Injunctions — Purpose and Prerequisites
A temporary injunction is a discretionary remedy granted to preserve the suit property pending disposal of the main suit. The applicant must show 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, the court will decide the question on the balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Temporary Injunctions — Preservation of Status Quo
In exercising the discretion of whether or not to grant a temporary injunction, the court does not look at the legal rights to property, but merely preserves the property in its actual condition until the main suit is disposed of.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo Already Disturbed
A temporary injunction is not available where the status quo has already been disturbed. Where the suit property sought to be preserved has already been sold off to a third party, an order of temporary injunction would be in vain and the application must fail.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Godfrey Sekitoleko & Ors v Seezi Mutabaazi [2001-2005] HCB Vol 3 p. 80
  • Wasswa v Kakooza [1987] HCB 79
  • Mugenyi v Wandera [1987] HCB 78

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakawooya v Segawa & 3 Ors (Ma No. 35 of 2011) [2012] UGHC 9 (19 January 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.