Wakilii

Prof. Badru Kateregga and Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 661 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 246 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim order restraining police investigations pending hearing of application for temporary injunction
Decision
Interim order granted restraining police investigations pending determination of substantive application for temporary injunction

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 has jurisdiction to grant interim relief restraining police investigations where constitutional rights violations are alleged. An interim order may issue under Order 50 Rule 3A CPR where a substantive application is pending and has a likelihood of success, and where continued investigative action would render the substantive application nugatory. At the interim stage, the court need not determine conclusively whether investigations are lawful but must preserve the subject matter pending hearing of the substantive application. The court restrained police from conducting further investigations pending determination of the substantive application for temporary injunction.

Outcome

Interim order granted restraining police investigations pending determination of substantive application for temporary injunction

Facts

The Applicants were subject to criminal investigations by Uganda Police under reference KMP/SOUTH: GEF 078/2025 for alleged forgery and uttering false documents following a complaint by Jolly Shubaiha Kateregga. The Applicants instituted Miscellaneous Cause No. 213 of 2025 seeking enforcement of constitutional rights and filed Miscellaneous Application No. 658 of 2025 for a temporary injunction. Before the temporary injunction application could be heard, police summoned the Applicants to record statements on 25 August 2025. The Applicants then brought this application for an interim order restraining the investigations, alleging reasonable apprehension of arrest and detention, partiality in the investigations, and imminent violation of constitutional rights. The Respondent opposed, arguing that investigations were being conducted pursuant to constitutional mandate under Articles 212 and 120(3)(a) and that no exceptional circumstances warranted interference.

Issues

  1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to grant an interim order restraining ongoing police investigations.
  2. Whether the Applicants have satisfied the conditions for grant of an interim injunction/order.

Orders

  • An interim order is hereby issued restraining the Uganda Police Force, its agents, officers or servants from conducting further criminal investigations against the Applicants in relation to allegations of forgery and uttering false documents vide KMP/SOUTH: GEF 078/2025 pending hearing and final determination of Miscellaneous Application No. 658 of 2025.
  • The status quo obtaining as at the date of this ruling shall be maintained pending disposal of Miscellaneous Application No. 658 of 2025.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the substantive application.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review of Executive Action — Interference with Police Investigations
Where allegations are raised that actions of investigative agencies threaten constitutional rights or amount to abuse of process, the High Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain applications for interim relief and to grant such relief against investigative actions pending determination of substantive proceedings. Article 50 of the Constitution empowers courts to provide redress where constitutional rights are threatened or infringed, and courts have a duty to subject executive action to constitutional scrutiny where violations of rights are alleged.
Interim Orders — Requirements under Order 50 Rule 3A CPR
Order 50 Rule 3A of the Civil Procedure Rules requires existence of a pending substantive application with likelihood of success before an interim order may issue. The Court is not required at the interim stage to determine conclusively whether the actions complained of are lawful or unlawful — that question properly belongs to the substantive application. The Court's duty at the interim stage is to preserve the substratum of the dispute pending hearing of the substantive application.
Interim Injunctions — Prima Facie Case at Interim Stage
At the interim order stage, the Court inquires into the existence of a prima facie case only to the extent necessary to preserve the subject matter. The Court does not determine the merits of the substantive dispute. A prima facie case is established where there is a pending substantive application which has not been shown to be frivolous and where continued action by the respondent may render the pending proceedings nugatory and occasion prejudice incapable of adequate remedy.
Interim Relief — Balance of Convenience
In determining whether to grant an interim order, the balance of convenience must be considered. Where the respondent will suffer no irreparable prejudice if action is temporarily stayed pending inter partes determination of the substantive application, whereas the applicants risk substantial prejudice if the impugned actions proceed before their constitutional grievances are heard, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of maintaining the prevailing status quo.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (7)

  • Peter Ssajjabbi & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 35 of 2013)
  • Larry Dramadri v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 173 of 2022)
  • Centre for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
  • Dr. Kiiza Besigye & Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 2007)
  • Sandra Aneno Karyn v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 400 of 2024)
  • Muzaale Simon V National Environment Management Authority Misc. Application No. 0103 of 204
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji A.N. Katende (1985) HCB 43

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Prof. Badru Kateregga and Others v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application 661 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 246 (8 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.