Wakilii

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

High Court · [2025] UGHC 690 · 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
Appeal allowed; temporary injunction granted restraining respondents from dealing with suit land 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 and set aside the Deputy Registrar's dismissal of the temporary injunction application. The court held that the appellant established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction to preserve the suit land pending final determination of the main suit. A temporary injunction was issued restraining the respondents from dealing with the suit land.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; temporary injunction granted restraining respondents from dealing with suit land pending determination of main suit

Facts

The appellant sued the respondents in Civil Suit No. 140 of 2022 seeking cancellation of a certificate of title to land comprised in Freehold Register Volume MSK 498, Folio 17, Plot 34, Nabugabo Drive, Kasijjagirwa, measuring 0.1840 hectares. The appellant claimed he was the rightful owner of the kibanja and that the first respondent fraudulently procured registration. The appellant 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 with no order as to costs on 16 May 2023. The appellant appealed, arguing that the Deputy Registrar erred in refusing to preserve the subject matter and in finding that irreparable damage had not been demonstrated. The respondents did not oppose the appeal.

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 — Appellate Review of Discretion
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.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant
Before a court grants a temporary injunction, three conditions must be satisfied: first, there must be a serious question to be tried on the facts alleged and a probability that the plaintiff will be entitled to the relief prayed; second, the court's interference is necessary to protect the plaintiff from the kind of injury which may be irreparable before his legal right is established; third, on a balance of convenience, there will be greater hardship and mischief suffered by the plaintiff from the withholding of the injunction than will be suffered by the defendant from the granting of it.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case
An applicant for a temporary injunction has the legal burden to show that there exists a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. What the applicant needs to show is that there exists a serious question to be tried and that the suit is not frivolous or vexatious in nature.
Land & Property — Temporary Injunctions — Interest in Land
As a matter of practice, temporary injunctions relating to land are only granted where the applicant has an interest in the land the subject of the main suit or on the basis that the respondent has threatened to dispose of the property in circumstances that could delay execution of any decree that would be passed against them.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Damage
Irreparable damage is that loss that cannot be adequately compensated for by an award of damages should the applicant be successful in the main suit.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience
It is only where a court is in doubt as to whether there is a prima facie case or irreparable damage that it should resort to determining the case on a balance of convenience.
Land & Property — Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience in Land Matters
Given the nature of land matters, where an applicant successfully shows that there exists a prima facie case warranting examination by the court, the balance of convenience lies with the applicant and the court should, in the interest of justice, step in and preserve the suit land without first waiting for the applicant's rights to be finally established in the main suit.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (18)

  • Father Nanensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tiberaga (Supreme Court Civil 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 690 (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.