Wakilii

Norah Owaraga v Silver Adowa Owaraga (High Court Civil Suit No. 18 of 2022; Miscellaneous Appeal No. 340 of 2022; Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 533 · 2023 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Deputy Registrar's dismissal of application for temporary injunction
Decision
Appeal allowed; temporary injunction granted restraining respondent from interfering with appellant's orchard pending determination of main suit

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 allowed the appeal, finding that the Deputy Registrar conducted the locus in quo irregularly by visiting after written submissions were filed and failing to administer oaths at the locus. The court held that a temporary injunction should be granted as the balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo in favor of the appellant who was in occupation of the suit land.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; temporary injunction granted restraining respondent from interfering with appellant's orchard pending determination of main suit

Facts

The appellant filed Civil Suit No. 18 of 2022 and Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2022 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from entering and interfering with her orchard on suit land. The Deputy Registrar dismissed the application after conducting a locus in quo. The appellant established an orchard of oranges and mangoes on the suit land around 2011-2012. The respondent allegedly forcefully entered the land, ploughed it, planted maize, and cut down some orange trees. The respondent acknowledged that orange trees planted in 2011 had naturally deteriorated and denied destroying trees, averring that other family members also cultivated the suit land.

Issues

  1. Whether the locus in quo was lawfully conducted by the Deputy Registrar.
  2. Whether the Deputy Registrar considered the grounds for the grant of a temporary injunction in the said application and if so, whether the said grounds support the grant of a temporary injunction.

Orders

  • The orders of the learned Deputy Registrar dismissing Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2022 are hereby set aside.
  • A temporary injunction is hereby issued maintaining the status quo and restraining the Respondent, his agents or assignees and successors from cutting and or destroying the Appellant/Applicant's orchard trees until the determination of the main suit.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs in this court and in the court below since they are family members.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo — Proper Procedure — Timing of Locus Visit
Where a matter has been reserved for ruling after parties filed written submissions, it is irregular for a judicial officer to conduct a locus in quo on the day parties appear to receive the ruling; the judicial officer should study the pleadings beforehand to determine whether a locus visit is necessary before directing parties to file submissions.
Evidence — Locus in Quo — Administration of Oath — Fresh Evidence
When parties are called to clarify their earlier testimony at a locus in quo, they must do so on oath; the fact that parties earlier led evidence under oath in their affidavits does not dispense with the need to administer oaths at the locus because the parties' clarifications at the locus constitute fresh evidence not covered by their respective affidavits.
Evidence — Locus in Quo — Procedure — Consequences of Irregularity
Proceedings at a locus in quo where witnesses give testimony without any oath being administered to them are irregular and constitute a nullity; it is improper to use such locus proceedings as a basis for any finding by the court.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Adequate Atonement in Damages
Irreparable injury means injury that must be substantial or material, that is, one that cannot be adequately compensated for in damages; where there is no evidence that the applicant will suffer irreparable damage that could not be atoned in damages, the ground for granting an interlocutory injunction is not satisfied.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Preservation of Status Quo
Where the applicant is in occupation of the suit land and other family members also use portions of it for cultivation, the balance of convenience tilts in favor of the applicant for purposes of preservation of the status quo as against the respondent.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (10)

  • Ngobi Patrick and Others v Nkuta Wilberforce (High Court Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2017)
  • De Souza v Uganda [1967] 1 EA 784
  • Yeseri Waiki v Edisa Luni Byandala [1982] HCB 28
  • Odong Jackson v Odongkara Joe (High Court Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2018)
  • Oryema Mark Ojok Robert (High Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2018)
  • Pio Semakula v Darlington Wamala Mugwanya and 3 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2018)
  • Paineto Omwero v Saulo s/o Zebuloni (High Court Civil Suit No. 31 of 2010)
  • David Acar v Alfred Acar Aliro [1982] HCB 60
  • Kiyimba Kagwa v Hajj Nassar Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Alley Route v Uganda Development Bank (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 634 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Norah Owaraga v Silver Adowa Owaraga (High Court Civil Suit No. 18 of 2022; Miscellaneous Appeal No. 340 of 2022; Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 533 (4 May 2023)
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.