Wakilii

Nambi Holdings Limited v Exim Bank Limited & 5 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 622 of 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGCOMMC 14 · 2020 Preliminary Objections Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for temporary injunction arising from civil suit; ruling on preliminary objections to the application
Decision
Application to proceed to hearing on merits

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 the applicant's affidavits, though lengthy and repetitive, were not argumentative or prolix within the meaning of Order 19 Rule 3 CPR. The averments were confined to facts within the deponent's knowledge and did not contain legal arguments. The second preliminary objection that the application was overtaken by events raised factual issues requiring evidence and could not be determined without hearing the application on merits. Both preliminary objections were overruled and the application ordered to proceed to hearing on merits.

Outcome

Application to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

Nambi Holdings Limited applied for a temporary injunction to restrain six respondents from evicting, alienating, or interfering with its possession of property comprised in Kyadondo Block 245 Plot 321 at Kiwuliriza, Kansanga. The respondents raised two preliminary objections: first, that the applicant's affidavits sworn by Brian Kaggwa (a director and advocate) were argumentative and prolix, containing over 100 paragraphs restating the plaint and including legal arguments; second, that the application was overtaken by events because the applicant had allegedly been evicted on 1 July 2019 before the application was filed on 25 July 2019, and the 5th respondent had taken possession of the property.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant's affidavits in support and in rejoinder are argumentative and prolix in contravention of Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and should be struck out.
  2. Whether the application for a temporary injunction is overtaken by events and rendered nugatory and incompetent.

Orders

  • Both preliminary points of objection overruled.
  • Application to proceed for hearing on its merits.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Prolixity and Argumentative Content — Requirements of Order 19 Rule 3
An affidavit is not rendered prolix or argumentative merely by its length or detailed narration of facts. For an affidavit to be struck out as prolix, it must unnecessarily and superfluously state facts and legal arguments. An affidavit containing detailed factual averments, even if lengthy and repetitive, does not contravene Order 19 Rule 3 CPR where those averments are confined to facts within the deponent's knowledge and do not contain statements of law or legal arguments.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Factual Matters Requiring Evidence
A preliminary objection that raises factual issues requiring proof by evidence cannot be determined at the preliminary stage. Where a respondent objects that an application for an injunction is nugatory because the status quo has changed, but proof of the changed status quo requires evaluation of contested affidavit evidence, the objection is factual in nature and must be reserved for hearing on the merits of the application.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Applications for Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo
An allegation that the status quo sought to be preserved by a temporary injunction has already changed is a matter of evidence that must be tried and proven. The court cannot conclude at the preliminary stage what the status quo is and how it came about without offering the applicant an opportunity to be heard and without testing the evidence.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (3)

  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2018)
  • Besigye Kiiza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta & Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Punch Telecom (U) Ltd v Warid Telecom (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 59 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nambi Holdings Limited v Exim Bank Limited & 5 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 622 of 2019) [2020] UGCommC 14 (28 May 2020)
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.