Wakilii

Nakibuuka Robina v Flora Kiconco and Another (Miscellaneous Application 395 of 2025; Miscellaneous Application No. 0394 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 143 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim injunction arising from miscellaneous cause for judicial review
Decision
Interim injunction granted pending determination of the substantive application for temporary injunction

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 court granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from implementing directives to take away five acres of the applicant's kibanja and redistribute estate properties. The applicant satisfied the three conditions for interim relief: a prima facie case existed in the pending judicial review application, a substantive application for temporary injunction was on record, and there was imminent threat to the status quo from land brokers and grading activities. The court held that preserving the status quo was necessary to prevent the substantive application from becoming nugatory.

Outcome

Interim injunction granted pending determination of the substantive application for temporary injunction

Facts

The applicant claimed to be one of eight biological children of the late Burasiyo Kaweesa, who gifted her approximately 10 acres of land at Majigye, Kasangati Town Council, Wakiso District, which she possessed exclusively for over 50 years. On 27 May 2025, she was served with a letter dated 15 May 2025 and a mediation report from the 1st Respondent directing her to surrender 5 acres of her kibanja for redistribution to beneficiaries of her late father's estate. The applicant contended she was never summoned to any mediation meeting. The 1st Respondent stated her office received a petition from Rutaro Vita regarding the estate of his grandfather Burasiyo Kaweesa, and that mediation meetings were held which the applicant refused to attend. The applicant filed an application for judicial review and temporary injunction, and subsequently this application for interim relief, citing threats from land brokers and evidence of land grading.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has satisfied all grounds to warrant grant of an interim order

Orders

  • An interim order of injunction is granted restraining the Respondents, their agents, successors in title or all of those claiming through them from implementing all the 1st Respondent's directives contained in the mediation report as well as in the forwarding letter dated 16th May 2025 relating to taking away 5 acres of the Applicant's Kibanja at Majigye, Kasangati Town Council, Wakiso District and distribution or re-distribution of the estate properties of the Late Burasiyo Kaweesa until final disposal and determination of the Application for Temporary Injunction or until further orders from this court.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Injunctions — Conditions for Grant
An interim injunction is granted where the applicant satisfies three essential conditions: (1) the applicant has a prima facie case or serious question to be tried; (2) there exists a substantive application for temporary injunction; and (3) there is imminent threat or need to preserve the status quo and maintain the right to be heard on the main application.
Civil Procedure — Interim Injunctions — Purpose and Function
The purpose of granting an interim order is to help parties preserve the status quo and have the main issues between them determined by the full court. It is a temporary order to maintain the status quo during the period before hearing of the substantive application, to ensure that no harm is caused to the interests of parties involved and that the subject matter of the case does not become abortive.
Civil Procedure — Inherent Powers of Court — Prevention of Abuse of Process
Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act preserves the inherent power of court to make such orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of court, and section 33 of the Judicature Act gives court power to grant absolutely on such terms and conditions as it thinks just all such remedies as any of the parties are entitled to so that matters in controversy may be completely and finally determined and all multiplicities of legal proceedings avoided.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (1)

  • Yakobo Senkungu and Others v Cerensio Mukasa (SC Civil Application No. 5 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakibuuka Robina v Flora Kiconco and Another (Miscellaneous Application 395 of 2025; Miscellaneous Application No. 0394 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 143 (19 August 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.