Wakilii

Nambuya and 4 Others v Devishi Manek Shah and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 38 of 1997)

High Court · [1998] UGHC 18 · 1998 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from civil suit concerning tenancy and compensation for improvements
Decision
Application for temporary injunction dismissed

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 dismissed the application for a temporary injunction. It held that the application was improperly brought under Section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act when Order 37 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules provided the specific remedy. On the merits, the applicants failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with probability of success in the main suit and failed to show they would suffer irreparable injury incapable of monetary compensation, as their claimed losses for renovations were quantifiable in monetary terms and they had adequate time to relocate their business operations.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed

Facts

The five applicants were tenants at Plot No. 1 Naboa Road, Mbale Town, and claimed to have carried out extensive repairs and renovations on the premises. On 7 October 1997, the respondent landlords served notices requiring the applicants to vacate by 31 December 1997. The applicants claimed the notice period was too short and that the respondents had not paid compensation for the improvements made to the premises as required under the Expropriated Properties Act. The first applicant claimed UGX 4,520,360, the second UGX 4,239,520, the fourth UGX 6,226,400, and the fifth UGX 3,500,000 in compensation for renovations. The third applicant's sole ground was that the notice period was inadequate. The applicants sought a temporary injunction restraining eviction until determination of the main suit, arguing they would suffer irreparable loss. By the hearing date of 30 January 1998, the applicants remained in occupation, approximately four months after receiving notice.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for a temporary injunction was properly brought under Section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for grant of a temporary injunction, namely: (i) a prima facie case with probability of success; (ii) irreparable injury incapable of monetary compensation; and (iii) balance of convenience.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Proper Legal Basis for Application
An application for a temporary injunction must be brought under the specific provision providing the remedy, namely Order 37 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Section 101 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be invoked where a specific remedy exists under another provision.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant
For a court to grant a temporary injunction, an applicant must satisfy three conditions: (i) demonstrate a prima facie case with probability of success in the main suit; (ii) show that irreparable injury incapable of monetary compensation would be suffered if the injunction is not granted; and (iii) if the court is in doubt, the matter is decided on the balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case Requirement
An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that they have a probability of success in the main suit and that the suit is not frivolous, vexatious, or illegal. Mere filing of the application without evidence showing probability of success is insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury Test
Irreparable injury incapable of monetary compensation refers to damage or injury that cannot be translated into monetary terms. Where an applicant's claimed losses are quantifiable and based on specific monetary amounts supported by bills of quantities, such losses are ascertainable in monetary terms and do not constitute irreparable injury for purposes of granting a temporary injunction.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • Batemuka v Anwar and Another [1987] HCB 71
  • Adoni v Mutekanga [1970] EA 429
  • Giella v Cassman Brawn & Company Ltd [1973] EA 358
  • EA Industries v Truffods [1972] EA 420
  • Tonny Wasswa E.L.T. Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdul Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Robert Kavuma v hotel International C.A 8/90
  • HCCS NO 609 Economy Publications vs Nitin Jayant & 9 ors
  • J.B.M Mubiru v ULC & Teddy tumusime HCCS NO 745/90
  • Noor Mohamed Jan Mohammed v Kassamali Virji Madhani [1953] 20 EACA 8

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nambuya and 4 Others v Devishi Manek Shah and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 38 of 1997) [1998] UGHC 18 (30 January 1998)
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.