Wakilii

Nakwale Fautine v Walungama Paul (Miscellaneous Application 69 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 659 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Deputy Registrar's order granting temporary injunction in land dispute
Decision
Appeal dismissed; temporary injunction upheld 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 dismissed the appeal against the Deputy Registrar's order granting a temporary injunction. The court held that the appeal was filed in time, applying Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act to exclude the time taken to prepare certified copies. The court found that the Deputy Registrar correctly identified a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo on the disputed land pending final determination of the main suit, notwithstanding that irreparable damage was not established on the evidence.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; temporary injunction upheld pending determination of main suit

Facts

Walungama Paul sued Nakwale Faustine claiming ownership of land at Buddu Block 207 Plot 7, Gayaza, Butenga sub county, Bukomansimbi District, measuring 4 acres. Walungama Paul alleged he purchased the land from Nakasolya Zipola, the registered owner, who gave him the certificate of title and vacant possession. He developed the land with crops. Nakwale Faustine allegedly trespassed and destroyed the crops, claiming ownership. Walungama Paul obtained a temporary injunction from the Deputy Registrar restraining Nakwale Faustine from further trespass. Nakwale Faustine appealed, contending he was in possession of the land, having derived it through his father Petero Bahima who had purchased Nakasolya Zipola's interest prior to any sale to Walungama Paul. The dispute centred on whether Nakasolya Zipola had valid ownership rights to sell to Walungama Paul.

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 had never been 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 deponent who was illiterate swearing on matters of law and facts not within his knowledge without disclosing the source.
  6. Whether by granting the temporary injunction the learned Deputy Registrar erred in fact and law in relation to the law on temporary injunctions.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Status quo on the suit land known as Buddu Block 207 Plot 7 at Gayaza, Butenga sub county, Bukomansimbi District to be maintained until final disposal of HCT-06-LD-CS-0010-2024.
  • Costs of the appeal to abide the outcome of the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Computation of Time — Exclusion of Time for Preparation of Certified Copies
In computing the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act, the time taken by the court or registrar in making a copy of the decree or order appealed against and of the proceedings upon which it is founded shall be excluded pursuant to Section 79(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Nature and Scope — Points of Law Only
A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication out of the pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. Preliminary objections cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. They should relate to points of law and should not require a court to go into the merits of the case before being decided.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant — Prima Facie Case
Before a court grants a temporary injunction, three conditions must be satisfied: first, there must be a serious question to be tried on the facts alleged and a probability that the plaintiff will be entitled to the relief prayed; second, the court's interference is necessary to protect the plaintiff from the kind of injury which may be irreparable before his legal right is established; third, on a balance of convenience, there will be greater hardship and mischief suffered by the plaintiff from the withholding of the injunction than will be suffered by the defendant from the granting of it.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Standard of Proof
A prima facie case exists where a party has produced enough evidence to allow the fact trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the party's favor if evidence to the contrary is disregarded. 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 which is led in support of the same were believed.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Damage — Adequacy of Damages
Irreparable damage is that loss that cannot be adequately compensated for by an award of damages should the applicant be successful in the main suit. A court cannot rely on speculation, conjectures or guesswork but must depend upon competent proof and on the basis of the best evidence obtainable under the circumstances. Damage to seasonal crops can be adequately compensated for by an award of damages and does not constitute irreparable damage.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — 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. Given the nature of land disputes, where a prima facie case is established, the balance of convenience may favour maintaining the status quo on the disputed land pending final determination.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (24)

  • Father Nanensio Begumisa and three others v Eric Tiberaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2000)
  • Lovinsa Nankya vs Nsibambi [1980] HCB 81
  • Nyero v Olweny and Ors (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 Musoke (High Court Civil Suit No. 630 of 1993)
  • Erisa Rainbow v Administrator General & 5 ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 230 of 2013)
  • Ahamada Kezala [1987] HCB 81
  • Farida Nantale vs Attorney General
  • 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 alias Bharti vs Veena (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 SC RA 363
  • Mandatally Alibhai 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 Fautine v Walungama Paul (Miscellaneous Application 69 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 659 (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.