Wakilii

Nakwale Faustine v Walungama Paul (Civil Miscellaneous Application 69 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 689 · 2025 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Deputy Registrar's ruling granting temporary injunction in land dispute
Decision
Status quo on suit land maintained 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 in part. The court upheld the Deputy Registrar's finding that the respondent had established a prima facie case with likelihood of success. However, the court found that the Deputy Registrar erred in concluding that irreparable damage had been established, as his findings were based on conjecture and assumptions rather than evidence. The damage to seasonal crops could be adequately compensated by damages. Nevertheless, given the prima facie case and the nature of the land dispute, the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending final determination of the main suit.

Outcome

Status quo on suit land maintained pending determination of main suit

Facts

Walungama Paul sued Nakwale Faustine claiming ownership of 4 acres of land at Buddu Block 207 Plot 7, Gayaza, which he purchased from Nakasolya Zipola in July 2023. He alleged that Nakwale trespassed and destroyed his crops (cassava, potatoes, maize, coffee, bananas) in December 2023. Walungama obtained a temporary injunction from the Deputy Registrar restraining Nakwale from the land. Nakwale appealed, claiming he was the one in possession and that his father Petero Bahima had purchased Nakasolya's interest (2 acres) prior to any sale to Walungama. Nakwale contended he was cultivating coffee, bananas, cassava and tomatoes commercially on the land. The core dispute was whether Nakasolya Zipola had valid ownership rights to sell to Walungama.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was filed out of time.
  2. Whether the appeal was incompetent for not citing the ruling and order correctly.
  3. Whether the appeal was incompetent because the Applicant admitted he was never in possession of the suit land.
  4. Whether the affidavit in support was incurably defective for being tainted with falsehoods.
  5. Whether the affidavit in support was incurably defective for the illiterate deponent swearing on matters of law and facts not within his knowledge.
  6. Whether by granting the temporary injunction the learned Deputy Registrar erred in fact and law in relation to the law on grant of temporary injunctions.

Orders

  • Appeal partly allowed.
  • The Deputy Registrar's finding on prima facie case upheld.
  • The Deputy Registrar's finding on irreparable damage set aside as based on conjecture.
  • Status quo on the suit land (Buddu Block 207 Plot 7, Gayaza, Butenga subcounty, Bukomansimbi District) to be maintained until final disposal of HCT-06-LD-CS-0010-2024.
  • All preliminary objections overruled.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Computation of Time — Effect of Request for Certified Copies
Where an appellant requests certified copies of proceedings on the day of the Deputy Registrar's ruling, the limitation period under Section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act begins to run from the date the certified copies are ready, not from the date of the ruling itself, by operation of Section 79(2) which excludes time taken by the court in preparing copies.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Nature and Scope — Points of Law versus Questions of Fact
A preliminary objection must consist of a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. Preliminary objections should not require a court to examine the merits of the case.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Standard of Proof
To establish a prima facie case for a temporary injunction, an applicant must show that there exists a serious question to be tried and that the suit is not frivolous or vexatious. A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but one which can be said to be established if the evidence led in support were believed. The court must tread lightly so as not to prejudge the main suit.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Damage — Requirement of Evidence Not Conjecture
A finding of irreparable damage for purposes of granting a temporary injunction must be based on competent proof and admissible evidence, not on speculation, conjecture, guesswork, assumptions or presumptions. A court cannot rely on suppositions with no basis in evidence. Damage to seasonal crops that can be adequately compensated by an award of damages does not constitute irreparable damage.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Application in Land Disputes
It is only where a court is in doubt as to whether there is a prima facie case or irreparable damage that it should resort to determining the case on a balance of convenience. In land disputes, where a prima facie case has been established, the balance of convenience generally favours maintaining the status quo pending final determination.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (23)

  • Father Nanensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tiberaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2000)
  • Lovinsa Nankya vs Nsibambi [1980] HCB 81
  • Nyero v Olweny and Others (Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2018)
  • Kaggwa v Ampire (Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2019)
  • Kilama and Others v Otim (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2019)
  • Mulindwa v Kisubika (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • V.F. Castelino vs Leo Rodrigue [1972] 2 ULR 45
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (High Court Civil Suit No. 630 of 1993)
  • Erisa Rainbow Musoke vs Ahamada Kezala [1987] HCB 81
  • Farida Nantale v Attorney General and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 230 of 2013)
  • Geilla vs Cassaman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] 1 EA 358
  • R vs Wilkes (1770) 4 Burr 2527
  • Gardner vs Jay (1885) 29 Ch 50
  • Parimal vs Veena alias Bhart (2011) 3 SCC 345
  • ER Investment Ltd vs Tanzania Development Finance Co. Ltd and another (1) [1999] EA 75
  • Tanzania Breweries Ltd vs Kibo Breweries Ltd and another [1999] 1 EA 341
  • East African Industries vs Trufoods, [1972] EA 420
  • Alley Route Ltd v UDB Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 634 of 2006)
  • Agip (K) Ltd vs Vora [2000] 2 EA 285
  • American Cyanamid Co. vs Ethicon Ltd [1975] UKHL 1
  • Lagon vs Hooven Comalco Industries, Inc. 349 SCRA 363
  • Mandatally Allibhai Popat v Master Managers & Traders Limited (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.

Nakwale Faustine v Walungama Paul (Civil Miscellaneous Application 69 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 689 (24 June 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.