Wakilii

Proline Soccer Academy v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No.494 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 233 · 2018 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from judicial review proceedings challenging administrative cancellation of land title
Decision
Temporary injunction granted restraining the respondent from dealing with the suit land pending determination of the judicial review proceedings

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

Held that the applicant disclosed a prima facie case raising a serious triable issue as to whether the Commissioner Land Registration complied with Section 91(8) of the Land Act when cancelling the applicant's leasehold title without notice or hearing. The applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the land were transferred to another party pending determination of the judicial review proceedings, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the existing state of the land. Temporary injunction granted to restrain the respondent from issuing title or conducting conveyancing on the suit land pending disposal of the main application.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted restraining the respondent from dealing with the suit land pending determination of the judicial review proceedings

Facts

The applicant was allocated 30 acres of land in Entebbe on orders of the Head of State to construct a football academy. Uganda Land Commission granted the applicant a lease in 2008 on the Head of State's directive, subsequently extended to 49 years in 2014. The Ministry of Lands issued a leasehold certificate of title vide LRV 4182 Folio 3 Plot M.135. The Commissioner Land Registration cancelled this title under Instrument No. 481042 of 11 March 2013, allegedly without notice or hearing. The applicant learned of the cancellation only when applying for lease extension. The respondent contended the applicant's title was erroneously issued over existing title LRV 3159 Folio 8 in favour of Civil Aviation Authority. The applicant feared the respondent would issue title to another party, as deed plans for Plots 19-21 Fishways Road had been created. The applicant held a running lease from Uganda Land Commission which had never been cancelled.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant disclosed a prima facie case with a probability of success in the main judicial review proceedings.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the temporary injunction was not granted.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of a temporary injunction.
  4. Whether the respondent followed the procedures prescribed under Section 91(8) of the Land Act when cancelling the applicant's certificate of title.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Temporary injunction granted restraining the respondent, its servants, assignees, employees, nominees and any persons claiming through them from issuance of title or carrying out any activity of land conveyance on the suit land pending disposal of the main application.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case
To establish a prima facie case for a temporary injunction, the applicant need not prove the claim to the hilt but must satisfy the court that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is a serious question to be tried.
Cancellation of Land Titles — Procedural Requirements
Under Section 91(8) of the Land Act, the Registrar of Lands must, before cancelling a certificate of title, give not less than 21 days' notice to any party likely to be affected, provide an opportunity to be heard, conduct the hearing in accordance with the rules of natural justice, and give reasons for the decision. Non-compliance with these requirements renders the cancellation procedurally defective and raises a serious triable issue.
Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury
Irreparable injury does not mean physical impossibility of repairing the injury but rather injury that is substantial or material and cannot be adequately atoned for by an award of damages. Where damages would not be sufficient to adequately compensate the injury, an injunction ought not to be refused.
Temporary Injunctions — Status Quo
The purpose of granting a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter of the dispute pending final determination of the case. An order to maintain the status quo is intended to prevent any party from taking action until the matter is resolved by court, thereby preventing harm and preserving existing conditions so that a party's position is not prejudiced pending resolution.
Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience
The balance of convenience lies in favour of the party who will suffer greater detriment if the temporary injunction is not granted. Where the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the respondent is not restrained, and the injury cannot be adequately compensated by damages, the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (18)

  • Equator International Distributors Ltd v Beiersdorf East Africa Ltd & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1127 of 2014)
  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1994)
  • Titus Tayebwa v Fred Bogere and Eric Mukasa (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
  • Behangana Domaro and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 73 of 2010)
  • Shiv Construction v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
  • American Cynamide versus Ethicon [1975] ALL ER 504
  • Victor Construction Works Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (HMA No. 601 of 2010)
  • Giella Versus Cassman Brown & Co. [1973] E.A 358
  • American Cynamide Versus Ethicon [1975] 1ALL E.R. 504
  • J. K. SENTONGO versus SHELL (U) LTD [1995] 111 KLR 1
  • Humphrey Nzeyi v Bank of Uganda and Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 01 of 2013)
  • Farida Nantale v Attorney General & 5 Others (HCMA No. 630 of 2013)
  • Gapco Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa Badru & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (HCCS No. 630 of 1993)
  • Erisa Rainbow Musoke v. Ahamada Kezala [1987] HCB 81
  • Commodity Trading Industries v Uganda Maize Trading Industries [2001 -2005] HCB 119
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji A.N Katende [1985] HCB 43

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Proline Soccer Academy v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No.494 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 233 (12 October 2018)
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.