Wakilii

Pio Kigundu and Another v Sekamwa Livingstone and Others (Civil Application No.713 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2026] UGCA 184 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a temporary injunction pending the hearing of a civil appeal
Decision
Temporary injunction granted to preserve the suit land pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 778 of 2024

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 single Justice granted a temporary injunction pending appeal restraining the respondents from dealing with the disputed registered land. The Court held that the applicants' appeal, premised on a dispute of land ownership, raised bona fide arguable issues amounting to a prima facie case. Because the subject matter was immovable property capable of permanent alienation through construction or sale to third parties, refusing the injunction risked rendering the appeal nugatory, satisfying the irreparable-damage requirement. The balance of convenience tilted in the applicants' favour. All three conditions being met, the injunction issued to preserve the status quo and the substratum of the appeal, with costs to abide the result of the appeal.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted to preserve the suit land pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 778 of 2024

Facts

The applicants, claiming to be the registered proprietors of land at Kyadondo Block 99 Plot 108, Kiti "B", sued the respondents for trespass in the High Court Land Division (Civil Suit No. 875 of 2016). In 2017 the parties entered a consent temporary injunction restraining both sides from dealing with the land pending the suit. In July 2024 the High Court partially decreed the suit, finding several respondents held valid kibanja interests and restraining them from dealing with the land without the registered proprietors' consent. Dissatisfied with part of the decision, the applicants appealed (Civil Appeal No. 778 of 2024) and applied for a temporary injunction. They alleged the respondents continued constructing permanent structures and selling portions to third parties, supported by photographs. The respondents denied constructing or selling, asserted they occupied separate decreed kibanja portions, and challenged the photographs' evidentiary value.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants established a prima facie case with a probability of success on the pending appeal.
  2. Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable damage not compensable in damages if the temporary injunction were refused.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting a temporary injunction restraining dealings with the suit land pending the appeal.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is issued restraining the respondents, their servants, agents, employees, or any other persons acting under their instructions, from excavating, trespassing, constructing, selling to third parties or in any other way dealing with the suit property comprised in Kyadondo Block 99 Plot 108, Land at Kiti "B", pending the hearing and final disposal of Civil Appeal No. 778 of 2024.
  • Costs will abide the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal — Conditions for Grant
A temporary injunction pending appeal will issue only where the applicant establishes a prima facie case with a probability of success, shows that refusal would occasion irreparable damage not adequately compensable in damages, and, where the court remains in doubt, that the balance of convenience favours granting the order.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Prima Facie Case — Arguable Appeal
A prima facie case exists once the applicant shows that the appeal raises bona fide arguable issues meriting the court's consideration; the court need only assess whether the appeal is brought in good faith and raises triable issues, without delving into its merits.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Irreparable Damage — Immovable Property
Where the subject matter of an appeal is immovable property capable of permanent alienation through transfer, construction or sale, maintaining the status quo is essential, and failure to restrain dealings may render the appeal nugatory; this satisfies the requirement of irreparable damage.
Land & Property — Preservation of Subject Matter — Status Quo Pending Appeal
The court may grant a temporary injunction to prevent the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of property pending the disposal of an appeal, so as to preserve the substratum of the appeal.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (6)

  • Shiv Construction v Endesho Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
  • MP Electronics & Anor v Ashishi and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 1266 of 2023)
  • Robert Kanyuma v Hotel International (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
  • Manna Enterprises (U) Ltd & Anor v Diamond Trust Bank (U) Ltd & Anor (Civil Application No. 1277 of 2023)
  • P.K. Sengendo v Busulwa Laurence & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2014)
  • Kyefusa Henry & Anor v Placid Maria Ssekamwa and Others (Civil Application No. 662 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pio Kigundu and Another v Sekamwa Livingstone and Others (Civil Application No.713 of 2024) [2026] UGCA 184 (15 May 2026)
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.