Wakilii

Ntumwa Zuli v Bukenya Moses and Another (Miscellaneous Application 108 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 656 · 2025 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Deputy Registrar's ruling dismissing application for temporary injunction in land dispute
Decision
Temporary injunction granted restraining respondents from dealing with suit land pending final 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 and set aside the Deputy Registrar's dismissal of the temporary injunction application. The court held that the applicant established a prima facie case showing an equitable interest in the suit land and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo pending final determination of the main suit. A temporary injunction was granted restraining the respondents from selling, mortgaging, or transferring the suit land.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted restraining respondents from dealing with suit land pending final determination of main suit

Facts

The applicant sued the respondents in Civil Suit No. 140 of 2022 seeking cancellation of the certificate of title for land comprised in Freehold Register Volume MSK 498, Folio 17, Plot 34, Nabugabo Drive, Kasijjagirwa, measuring 0.1840 hectares. The applicant claimed he was the rightful owner of the kibanja and that the first respondent fraudulently procured registration. The applicant filed an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from selling, mortgaging, or transferring the suit land pending determination of the main suit. The Deputy Registrar dismissed the application on 16 May 2023 with no order as to costs. The applicant appealed, arguing that the Deputy Registrar erred in ignoring that he was in possession of the suit land with developments thereon and faced danger of eviction, and that the Deputy Registrar failed to preserve the subject matter and properly assess irreparable damage and balance of convenience.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Deputy Registrar erred in law and fact when he dismissed the application for a temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Orders of the learned Deputy Registrar in HCT-06-LD-MA-0248-2022 set aside.
  • A temporary injunction doth issue restraining the Respondents, their agents and/or servants or persons claiming under them from selling, mortgaging, transferring the suit land comprised in Freehold Register, volume MSK 498, Folio 17, known as Plot 34, Nabugabo Drive, land at Kasijjagirwa measuring approximately 0.1840 hectares, pending the final determination of HCT-06-LD-CS-0140-2022.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of HCT-06-LD-CS-0140-2022.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Applicant Claiming Equitable Interest in Land
An applicant for a temporary injunction relating to land establishes a prima facie case where the applicant claims an equitable interest in the land and alleges fraudulent registration in the respondent's name, provided such claim if proved would entitle the applicant to the remedies sought in the main suit.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Damage — Eviction from Land
The fact that an applicant has developments on suit land does not of itself establish irreparable damage not compensable by an award of damages; however, the fact of eviction may constitute such damage where it is shown that the applicant may lose their livelihood.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Land Matters
In land matters, where a prima facie case is established, the balance of convenience lies with the applicant and the court should in the interest of justice preserve the suit land without first waiting for the applicant's rights to be finally established in the main suit.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-hear
It is the duty of a first appellate court to re-hear the case by subjecting the evidence presented to the trial court to a fresh and exhaustive scrutiny and re-appraisal before coming to its own conclusion.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Judicial Discretion — Appellate Interference
The grant of a temporary injunction is an exercise of judicial discretion and an appellate court will not interfere with orders made by a lower court unless it is shown that the discretion was not exercised judiciously, meaning the lower court failed to appreciate the facts or properly apply them to the principles governing issuance of temporary injunctions.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (18)

  • Father Nanensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tiberaga (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2000)
  • Lovinsa Nankya v Nsibambi [1980] HCB 81
  • Nyero v Olweny and Others (Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2018)
  • Kaggwa v Ampire (Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2019)
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (High Court Civil Suit No. 630 of 1993)
  • Erisa Rainbow Musoke v Ahamada Kezala [1987] HCB 81
  • Farida Nantale v Attorney General and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 230 of 2013)
  • Geilla v Cassaman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] 1 EA 358
  • R v Wilkes (1770) 4 Burr 2527
  • Gardner v Jay (1885) 29 Ch 50
  • Parimal v Veena alias Bhart (2011) 3 SCC 345
  • ER Investment Ltd v Tanzania Development Finance Co. Ltd and Another [1999] EA 75
  • Tanzania Breweries Ltd v Kibo Breweries Ltd and Another [1999] 1 EA 341
  • East African Industries v Trufoods [1972] EA 420
  • Alley Route Ltd v UDB Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 634 of 2006)
  • Agip (K) Ltd v Vora [2000] 2 EA 285
  • American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd [1975] UKHL 1
  • Mandatally Allibhai Popat v Master Managers & Traders Limited (High Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ntumwa Zuli v Bukenya Moses and Another (Miscellaneous Application 108 of 2023) [2025] UGHC 656 (16 June 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.