Wakilii

Nanteza Asiya v Kalemera & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 500 of 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCLD 29 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a temporary injunction order made by the Deputy Registrar in consolidated miscellaneous applications arising from a civil suit concerning disputed land
Decision
Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 application for review of a temporary injunction order. The court held that the Deputy Registrar acted properly in issuing the temporary injunction to preserve the status quo as observed at locus. The order inherently prohibited acts that would affect the status quo, including construction, regardless of whether such acts were specifically mentioned in the parties' pleadings. The court found no error in the Deputy Registrar's observations or in declining to order restoration of an access road, as doing so would have altered the status quo.

Outcome

Application for review dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The parties occupy different portions of land comprised in Kibuga Block 4 Plot 508 at Namirembe, with the applicant on the upper part and the respondents on the lower part. The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 194 of 2019 seeking cancellation of the certificate of title and damages for alleged fraudulent acquisition. Both parties filed applications for temporary injunctions which were consolidated. The Deputy Registrar visited the locus and observed that there was a fencing of iron sheets on an access road separating the parties, with a tenant belonging to the respondents within the fencing. The Deputy Registrar also observed a demolished pit latrine and rubbish pit on the applicant's part with the rest of the land appearing vacant. Based on these observations, the Deputy Registrar issued a temporary injunction restraining all parties from selling, disposing, construction, or removing the caveat on the suit land. The applicant sought review of this order, arguing that it improperly restrained her from reconstructing her pit latrine and erecting a perimeter wall, and that it failed to restore an access road.

Issues

  1. Whether the temporary injunction order made by the Deputy Registrar contained errors warranting review.
  2. Whether the temporary injunction order improperly restrained the applicant from constructing on her part of the suit land.
  3. Whether the temporary injunction order improperly failed to restore an access road on the suit land.
  4. Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in observing that part of the applicant's land was vacant.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Purpose and Scope — Preservation of Status Quo
The whole purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the parties in the status quo until the question to be investigated in the suit can be finally disposed of.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo — Definition
Status quo denotes the existing state of affairs before a given point in time at which the acts complained of as affecting or likely to affect the existing state of things occurred.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Scope of Restraint — Acts Not Expressly Pleaded
A temporary injunction order issued to preserve the status quo inherently prohibits all acts or omissions, including those not expressly mentioned in the order or in the parties' pleadings, that may affect the status quo.
Civil Procedure — Review of Orders — Grounds for Review — Preservation of Status Quo
Where a court issues a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo as observed at locus, the order will not be set aside on review where the court acted properly in declining to order restoration of features not existing at the material time, as doing so would alter rather than preserve the status quo.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Noor Mohammed Janmohamed v Karamali Virji Madhani (1953) 20 EACA 8
  • Jakisa & Others v Kyambogo University (Miscellaneous Application No. 549 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nanteza_Asiya_Vs_Kalemera_&_2_Ors_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._500_of_2019)_[2019]_UGHCLD_29_(14_June_2019)
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.