Wakilii

Ntambara Faustine v Mugabi Davis and 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0084 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 924 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from Land Civil Suit No. 0032 of 2025
Decision
Temporary injunction granted maintaining applicant in possession of the suit land pending determination of the 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 granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from entering or interfering with the suit land pending determination of the main suit. The court found that the applicant, who was in current physical possession of the land, established a prima facie case with probability of success, would suffer irreparable injury if evicted, and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo by maintaining the applicant in possession.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted maintaining applicant in possession of the suit land pending determination of the main suit

Facts

The applicant claimed to have been in occupation of Plots 18 and 19 Block 758 Singo Kyankwanzi since 2000. In 2019, the 1st respondent allegedly facilitated the 2nd to 6th respondents to file civil suits against fictitious persons, obtaining judgments and evicting the applicant in October 2022. The Minister of State for Lands reinstated the applicant on 2 May 2024 following a locus visit. The 1st respondent subsequently purchased the plots from the 2nd to 6th respondents and was registered as proprietor of Plot 18 on 31 January 2024. The applicant filed the main suit claiming adverse possession and sought a temporary injunction after learning that the Senior Presidential Advisor on Special Duties recommended his eviction and arrest. The 8th respondent (Commissioner Land Registration) and the 5th and 6th respondents did not oppose the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the application meets the conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • A temporary injunction order is issued restraining the respondents, their workers, agents, assignees, and any one acting under their authority from entering the suit land, evicting the applicant, demarcating, constructing, selling, or otherwise dealing with the land comprised in Plots 18 and 19 Block 758 Singo Kyankwanzi (formerly comprised in MRV 649 Folio 23 Block 758 Plot 5 (formerly Plot 1), Bukutu, Singo) Mubende District pending the hearing and determination of the main suit, Land Civil Suit No. 032 of 2025.
  • The costs of this application will abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Purpose and Scope — Preservation of Status Quo
A temporary injunction order prohibits or requires a party to perform an action until a full hearing or trial of the case, with its main purpose being to maintain the status quo by preventing harm or protecting the rights of the parties before a final decision is taken.
Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo — Determination of Existing State of Affairs
Status quo denotes the existing state of affairs before a given particular point in time, and where an applicant is in current physical possession and occupation of land, the status quo to be preserved is the presence of the applicant on the land in issue.
Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant — Prima Facie Case
To establish a prima facie case for a temporary injunction, the applicant must show that there is a real issue to be tried and that the case is not frivolous or vexatious; the court does not delve deep into the merits of the case but rather determines whether there is a serious question to be determined.
Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Meaning and Application
Irreparable injury does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but rather that the injury or damage must be substantial or material and cannot be adequately atoned for by an award of damages; such damage is usually not reversible and cannot be quantified.
Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Party in Possession
In determining the balance of convenience, the party which has been in possession of the suit land is the one which will stand to be prejudiced if evicted more than the party who is not in possession, and therefore the balance of convenience favours the party in current possession.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (8)

  • Sauba Nabitindi v Umar Nassolo Sekamate & Another (Application No. 516 of 2011)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdul Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Moses Kasozi v Muhammad Batte & 4 Others (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2020)
  • Tonny Wasswa v Joseph Kakooza (1987) HCB 79
  • NTCO Ltd v Hope Nyakaini (1992-1993) HCB 135
  • Timothy Alvin Kahooho v Secretary General of EAC (EACJ Application No. 5 of 2012)
  • Misaki Kaviigi v Musiime James (CACA No. 147 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ntambara Faustine v Mugabi Davis and 7 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 0084 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 924 (11 August 2025)
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.