Wakilii

Obatre Alex Lumumba v Igumira Mark and Others (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 59 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 366 · 2025 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Assistant Registrar's ruling dismissing application for temporary injunction
Decision
Appeal allowed; temporary injunction granted 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, holding that the Assistant Registrar erred in conducting and relying upon an irregular locus visit conducted without notice to the appellant and in the absence of local authorities, contrary to natural justice. The court further held that the Registrar failed to evaluate the affidavit evidence and submissions on record or apply the legal test for temporary injunctions. The ruling dismissing the temporary injunction was set aside and a temporary injunction was granted restraining the respondents from interfering with the appellant's possession of the suit land pending determination of the main suit.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; temporary injunction granted pending determination of main suit

Facts

The appellant purchased land comprised in Kyadondo Block 185 Plots 11407 and 11408 and an additional 50 decimals off Block 185 formerly Plot 354 at Kito, Namugongo, Wakiso District. Upon purchase, he took possession and constructed a perimeter wall. The respondents claimed Kibanja interests on the same land, allegedly purchased in 2014 from Tom Keeya, asserting their interests lie on Plot 354 which remains intact. The respondents allegedly trespassed, destroyed parts of the appellant's perimeter wall, and attempted to construct a gate. The appellant filed an application for a temporary injunction before the Assistant Registrar. The court scheduled a locus visit for 22 April 2025. The Assistant Registrar conducted the locus visit and subsequently dismissed the application for temporary injunction, relying on findings from the locus visit. The appellant contends he was never notified of the locus visit and neither he nor his counsel participated. The appellant appealed the Assistant Registrar's ruling.

Issues

  1. Whether the Learned Assistant Registrar erred in law and fact when he relied on a locus visit to which the Appellant and his lawyers were never informed of, nor did they participate in the same.
  2. Whether the Learned Assistant Registrar properly evaluated the grounds for the grant of a temporary injunction or based his ruling only on the locus visit which was conducted without the Appellant.
  3. Whether the Learned Assistant Registrar properly evaluated the evidence before him when he disregarded the Applicant's evidence showing that the appellant was the lawful owner of the suit land.
  4. Whether the Learned Assistant Registrar erred in law and fact when he proceeded with the locus visit yet parties had opted out of the locus visit.
  5. Whether the Learned Assistant Registrar properly evaluated the evidence before him when he disregarded the Appellant's evidence showing that the Respondents had demolished part of the Appellant's perimeter wall and that they were at the verge of evicting the appellant from the suit land.

Orders

  • The ruling and orders of the Learned Assistant Registrar in Miscellaneous Application No. 0282 of 2025 are hereby set aside.
  • A temporary injunction is accordingly issued restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants, assignees, transferees, or any person claiming under them from trespassing upon, constructing on, selling, mortgaging, transferring, or otherwise interfering with the Applicant's possession, use, or occupation of the land comprised in Kyadondo Block 185 Plots 11407 & 11408 and land measuring approximately 50 decimals off Block 185 formerly Plot 354, until the final determination of the main suit.
  • Costs of this appeal and Miscellaneous Application 0282 of 2025 shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Locus in Quo — Requirements for Valid Locus Visit — Notice to Parties and Presence of Local Authorities
A locus visit is not an independent hearing but an extension of court proceedings intended to enable the court to understand, clarify, and appreciate evidence already adduced in court. A locus visit must be conducted with notice to all parties and in the presence of local authorities, witnesses, and the parties' advocates to ensure fairness and transparency. Failure to observe these requirements renders the proceedings at locus irregular.
Civil Procedure — Natural Justice — Right to Fair Hearing — Conducting Proceedings Ex Parte
It is improper for a court to rely on findings from a locus visit conducted ex parte and contrary to the rules of natural justice. Where a party is not given notice of a locus visit and is denied the opportunity to participate or rebut evidence presented during the visit, the court acts irregularly and occasions a miscarriage of justice.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Test for Grant — Evaluation of Affidavit Evidence
In determining an application for a temporary injunction, the court must assess whether the applicant has established: (i) a prima facie case with a probability of success; (ii) a likelihood of irreparable damage that cannot be atoned for by an award of damages; and (iii) the balance of convenience. The court is enjoined to evaluate the affidavit evidence and submissions on record and apply these legal principles. Failure to do so constitutes a material error.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Preservation of Status Quo — Interlocutory Stage
At the interlocutory stage, the court is not called upon to determine ownership with finality but only to assess whether the applicant has established the requirements for a temporary injunction. The existence of a boundary and ownership dispute does not disentitle the applicant to injunctive relief; rather, it strengthens the need to preserve the status quo to prevent further alteration of the suit land before the rights of the parties are determined in the main suit.
Civil Procedure — Appeals from Registrar — Duty of First Appellate Court — Re-evaluation of Evidence
An appeal from an order of a Registrar to the High Court under Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires the appellate court to re-evaluate and reappraise the evidence on record. The first appellate court must examine whether the Registrar properly evaluated the evidence and applied the correct legal principles.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Hon. Owole Nixon v Owole Thomas and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2014)
  • Fr Narsensio Begumisa and Others v Eric Tibebaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Robert Kavuma v Hotel International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Obatre_Alex_Lumumba_v_Igumira_Mark_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Appeal_No._59_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_366_(16_October_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.