Wakilii

Nkoobe Hamdan and Another v Kawanguzi Hamidu and Another (Miscellaneous Application No.57 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 780 · 2026 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal to a judge from the decision of an Assistant Registrar dismissing an application for a temporary injunction
Decision
Appeal dismissed; refusal of the temporary injunction by the Assistant Registrar upheld

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

Appeal from a Registrar's refusal of a temporary injunction restraining alleged intimidation and assault. The High Court accepted that injunctions are not confined to protecting property in dispute and may restrain wrongful conduct, but held that such relief must be founded on established legal principles and supported by credible evidence. The appellants tendered no cogent evidence of ongoing or repeated threats; their allegations were speculative and unsubstantiated. Courts cannot act on mere apprehension or speculation. The Assistant Registrar could therefore not be faulted for dismissing the application. Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents, with the observation that any claim to the land should be pursued in court rather than through threatened violence.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; refusal of the temporary injunction by the Assistant Registrar upheld

Facts

The appellants claimed ownership and occupation of land at Nakalama comprised in a freehold register volume/folio, plot 283 (also referred to as plot 238), Block 26, registered in the name of the first appellant. They applied in Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 2025, arising from Civil Suit No. 008 of 2025, for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from entering the property and from intimidating, assaulting, beating and injuring them pending determination of the main suit. The Assistant Registrar dismissed that application, reasoning that injunctions issue only where property is in dispute so as to protect the property. The appellants appealed, contending that injunctions may also issue to prevent repetitive conduct causing injury. The respondents opposed the appeal, arguing that the injunction application had no nexus to the main suit, that no repetitive injurious conduct had been demonstrated, and that the application was speculative and aimed at obtaining an injunction over plot 283. The appellants relied on the first appellant's affidavit but placed no evidence of ongoing or repeated acts of intimidation or assault before the court. The appeal proceeded by written submissions.

Issues

  1. Whether the Assistant Registrar erred in law in holding that temporary injunctions are only issued to protect property in dispute.
  2. Whether the appellants adduced sufficient evidence of threatened or repetitive wrongful conduct to justify the grant of an injunction restraining assault and intimidation.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Scope of Relief Not Confined to Property in Dispute
Temporary injunctions are not limited to the protection of property in dispute and may extend to restraining wrongful conduct, provided the relief sought is grounded in established legal principles.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Evidential Threshold — Speculative Apprehension Insufficient
An injunction cannot be granted on the basis of mere apprehension or speculation; an applicant alleging threatened or repeated injurious conduct must support the allegation with cogent, credible evidence of ongoing or repeated acts.
Civil Procedure — Appeal from Decision of Registrar — Interference Where Discretion Properly Exercised
A judge will not fault a Registrar's dismissal of an injunction application where the applicant failed to meet the required evidential threshold, even if part of the Registrar's reasoning on the law was too narrowly stated.
Tort Law — Threatened Assault and Trespass — Recourse to Court Rather Than Self-Help
A party claiming an interest in land must seek redress through the courts rather than resort to threats of violence, such threatened conduct being criminal in nature.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nkoobe Hamdan and Another v Kawanguzi Hamidu and Another (Miscellaneous Application No.57 of 2025) [2026] UGHC 780 (29 April 2026)
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.