Nassali v Nabateregga (Civil Appeal 58 of 2021)

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.

Holding

Held that a temporary injunction must preserve the status quo and not alter existing possession. Where a party admits in affidavit that the opposing party is in possession and using land, an order directing that the party in possession vacate and the non-possessing party take possession improperly changes the status quo, effectively evicts the possessing party, and prematurely determines rights before trial. Such an order exceeds the proper scope of temporary injunction relief. The appeal was allowed with modification that the appellant remain on the land without planting perennial crops or constructing permanent structures pending determination of the main suit.

Outcome

Order of trial Chief Magistrate modified; appellant to remain on suit land without planting perennial crops or constructing permanent structures pending determination of main suit

Facts

The respondent applied for a temporary injunction in the Chief Magistrate's Court seeking to stop the appellant from using suit land. In her affidavit in support, the respondent admitted that the appellant was in possession and using the suit land, although the respondent considered such use unlawful. The trial Chief Magistrate granted the application and ordered that the appellant, who was in possession, should stop using the land and that the respondent should instead use it pending determination of the main suit. The appellant appealed, arguing that the order altered the status quo, effectively evicted her, and prematurely determined the rights of the parties.

Issues

1. Whether the learned trial Chief Magistrate erred in ordering eviction of the appellant who was in possession in an application for temporary injunction thereby altering the status quo.
2. Whether the learned trial Chief Magistrate erred in issuing orders that disposed of the main suit in an application for temporary injunction.
3. Whether the learned trial Chief Magistrate erred in granting an order not prayed for by the respondent.
4. Whether the learned trial Chief Magistrate erred in delving into the merits of the main suit in determining the application for temporary injunction.
5. Whether the learned trial Chief Magistrate applied the proper principles for grant of temporary injunction.

Orders

• Appeal allowed.
• The Appellant shall stay on the suit land, without growing perennial crops and construction of permanent structures until court determines the rights of the parties.
• The costs of this appeal are awarded to the party that will succeed in the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 r.1(a)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 r.2(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 42 Rule 1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 rule 1(1)(q)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 44 rule 2
• Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (7)

• Nabitindo v Umar Nassolo Sekamate & Anor (HCMISC Application No. 516 of 2011)
• Goustar Enterprises Ltd v John Kakas Oumo (SCCA No. 08 of 2003)
• Byaruhanga v Muhoozi & Anor (HCMA No. 215 of 2014)
• Uganda Revenue Authority v Rwakasanje Azariu & 2 Ors (CACA No. 8 of 2007)
• Fr. Narsensio Begumisa and 3 Ors v Eric Kibebaga (SCCA No. 17 of 2002)
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (SCCA No. 08 of 1998)
• Kabigi Taqwa Foundation Ltd v Abdul Jabber Idrisa Mawnda (Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2022)

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