Opio David Obwangamoi v Kalyango Ismail Lubowa [2026] UGCOMMC 376

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.

Holding

The applicant sought a certificate of urgency so his interim injunction application could be heard during court vacation, alleging the respondent threatened to repossess two vehicles that were the subject of disputed sale agreements. The court held that no urgency was demonstrated because an existing ex parte order authorising the respondent to repossess the vehicles remained enforceable, having never been set aside. Rather than apply to set aside that order before the issuing court, the applicant filed a fresh suit, which the court found to be an abuse of court process. The application was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit.

Outcome

Application for a certificate of urgency dismissed for lack of merit.

Facts

The applicant instituted a civil suit against the respondent for breach of two sale agreements relating to Motor Vehicle Registration numbers UA 466Q BMW X6M and UA 224BG Toyota Alphard Gold. He then commenced applications for a temporary injunction and an interim injunction pending determination of the substantive suit. The applicant alleged the respondent continued to threaten, harass and intimidate him, intending to repossess the two vehicles contrary to the express terms of the agreements. There existed an ex parte order (Annexure C) permitting the respondent to repossess the said vehicles. The applicant had not filed any application to set aside that ex parte order before the court that issued it, but had instead filed a fresh suit before the Commercial Division. He sought a certificate of urgency to have the interim injunction application heard during court vacation.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established sufficient grounds for the grant of a certificate of urgency to have the interim injunction application heard during court vacation.

Orders

• Application dismissed for lack of merit.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282 s.98
• Judicature Act Cap. 16 s.37
• Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules SI No. 13-20 r.4
• Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rr.1, 2 & 3

Cases cited (3)

• Nakato and Another v Busonga and Another (Civil Application No. 664 of 2023)
• Anguria Joseph t/a Anguria & Co. Advocates v Umeme Limited and Makubya Enock t/a Polla Plast (Miscellaneous Application No. 1671 of 2025)
• Attorney General and Uganda Land Commission v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)

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