Wakilii

Ntambara v Segawole (Civil Application 52 of 2025)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 113 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a temporary injunction pending the determination of a civil appeal
Decision
Temporary injunction granted preserving the status quo of the suit land pending determination of the appeal

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

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal granted a temporary injunction preserving the status quo of disputed land at Kigweri pending determination of the applicant's civil appeal. The court dismissed the respondent's preliminary objection, holding that under rule 6(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules a party may seek either an injunction or a stay of execution once a notice of appeal is lodged, and that a stay is not a precondition to an injunction. Applying American Cyanamid and Kiyimba Kaggwa, the court found the applicant had shown a prima facie case with a probability of success, that threatened eviction and destruction of occupation amounted to irreparable injury, and that, the applicant being in possession, the balance of convenience favoured granting the order.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted preserving the status quo of the suit land pending determination of the appeal

Facts

The respondent sued the applicant in Civil Suit No. 454 of 2004 in the High Court (Commercial Court) for rescission of a sale agreement and obtained an ex parte judgment rescinding the sale, with orders for return of the land, 340 head of cattle, damages and costs. The applicant, claiming he was never served with hearing notices and condemned unheard, pursued several remedies: Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2010 (dismissed), Miscellaneous Application No. 1082 of 2019 to set aside the ex parte judgment (dismissed for lack of merit), and Miscellaneous Application No. 150 of 2021 for an injunction (dismissed). He then filed Civil Appeal No. 135 of 2020, currently pending. The applicant, in possession of the suit land at Kigweri (approximately 948.6 hectares), alleged the respondent had invaded the land, uprooted fences, destroyed homes, cut trees and threatened to evict occupiers claiming through him, and intended to dispose of the land, thereby defeating his interest pending the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's preliminary objection — that the court cannot grant an injunction on a matter subject to a judgment that has not been stayed — should be upheld.
  2. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success in the pending appeal.
  3. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury not adequately compensable in damages if the injunction were refused.
  4. Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the temporary injunction to preserve the status quo of the suit land pending the appeal.

Orders

  • The respondent's preliminary objection is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • A temporary injunction is issued preserving the status quo, restraining the respondent and/or his agents and any person claiming an interest through the applicant from interfering with or altering the status quo of the suit land at Kigweri until final determination of the appeal.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the civil appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Power of the Court of Appeal under Rule 6(2)(b) — Stay of Execution Not a Precondition
Once a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with the rules, rule 6(2)(b) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules empowers the court to order either a stay of execution or an injunction; an injunction is not required to be preceded by the grant of a stay of execution.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant
A temporary injunction will issue where the applicant shows a prima facie case with a probability of success, that he might otherwise suffer irreparable injury not adequately compensable in damages, and, where the court is in doubt on those points, that the balance of convenience favours granting the order.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case with a Probability of Success
A prima facie case requires only that there is a serious question to be tried; the applicant must place before the court material that goes beyond a mere statement that the appeal has a likelihood of success, but need not prove the case to the hilt or demonstrate actual success.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury
Irreparable injury means a substantial or material injury that cannot be adequately compensated in damages, not one that is physically impossible to repair; threatened eviction and the destruction of occupation on disputed land constitutes such injury.
Land & Property — Preservation of Status Quo — Possession and Balance of Convenience
Where the applicant is in possession of disputed land and stands to be prejudiced by eviction, the balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo by restraining the respondent pending the determination of the appeal.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (13)

  • E.L.T Kiyimba Kaggwa vs Hajii Katende Abdul Nasser, Civil suit No. 2109 of 1984
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa vs Hajji Abdu Nasser Katende (1985) HCB 186
  • Olum Tremors and 2 others v Akong Maratina and another (Civil Application No. 246 of 2023)
  • MP Electronics Limited and another v Ashishi Shantal Kamani and 2 others (Civil Appeal No. 1266 of 2023)
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Jayndrakumar Devechand Devani v Haridas Vallabhdas Bhadresa and another (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1971)
  • Legal Brains Trust Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 56 of 2023)
  • Ponsiano Semakula vs Susane Magala & Others, 1993 KALR, Page 213
  • Godfrey Sekitoleko & Others vs Seezi Mutabazi [2001-2005] HCB Vol. 380
  • Robert Kamuma v Hotel International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
  • Prof. Peter Anyang Nyongo & Others vs The Attorney General of Kenya & Others; East African Court of Justice Case Ref. No. 1 of 2006
  • Martin Burn Ltd vs V.R.N Banerjee 1958 AIR 79 SCR 514
  • Osman Kassim v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ntambara v Segawole (Civil Application 52 of 2025) [2025] UGCA 113 (25 April 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.