Wakilii

Pulle & Another v Pulle & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 3799 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 195 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from a review application, itself arising from a vesting order in miscellaneous cause proceedings
Decision
Temporary injunction granted restraining dealings with the suit land pending determination of the main review application

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 an application for review commenced by notice of motion constitutes a suit under the Civil Procedure Act, and an application for temporary injunction can properly arise from it where brought under Order 41 Rule 1 and other enabling provisions. A temporary injunction was granted to preserve the status quo of disputed land pending determination of a review application challenging a vesting order, where applicants demonstrated a prima facie case, risk of irreparable injury from ongoing construction and threatened sale, and balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted restraining dealings with the suit land pending determination of the main review application

Facts

The applicants, claiming as beneficiaries of the estate of the late Hugh Francis Pulle, brought an application for temporary injunction in respect of land comprised in Busiro Block 400 Plots 91–103 at Nganjo. The land was originally registered in their late father's name and administered by their late mother. The respondents, who claimed to have purchased portions of the land from the applicants' sister Alice Agatha Pulle Nakazzi, obtained a vesting order in August 2022 and transferred the land into their names. Prior to the vesting order, the parties had attended several meetings before the area chairman to resolve their competing claims. The applicants alleged fraud and illegality in the obtaining of the vesting order, as the respondents represented that the original certificate of title was lost when the applicants possessed it and presented it at the meetings. The applicants filed an application for review of the vesting order and simultaneously sought a temporary injunction to prevent the respondents from dealing with the land. Evidence showed that the respondents commenced fresh construction and fencing on the land in 2023 during the pendency of the review application, and at a locus visit informed court they had sold two plots, contradicting their sworn affidavits.

Issues

  1. Whether the current applicants' application for a temporary injunction can properly arise from a main application for review commenced by notice of motion.
  2. Whether the applicants can apply for an order of temporary injunction without having filed a suit with a prayer for a permanent injunction.
  3. Whether the applicants' application meets the grounds for granting a temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Application for temporary injunction allowed.
  • Temporary injunction issued restraining the respondents, their agents, assignees and all persons deriving instructions from them from selling, pledging, mortgaging, carrying out any further cultivation, further constructions, transferring the suit land and allowing any other persons to occupy and use the suit land comprised in Busiro Block 400 Plots 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 and 103 situate at Nganjo, Wakiso District until the determination of the main application for review.
  • Costs to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review Applications — Mode of Commencement — Notice of Motion
An application for review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act may be commenced by notice of motion where the statute does not prescribe the procedure. A notice of motion constitutes a 'suit' within the meaning of sections 2(x) and 2(q) of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is a civil proceeding commenced in a manner prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Requirement of Substantive Suit with Prayer for Permanent Injunction
Where an application for a temporary injunction is brought under Order 41 Rule 1(a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules together with sections 98 and 64(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and sections 33 and 38 of the Judicature Act, it is not necessary that the applicant must have already filed a suit with a prayer for a permanent injunction. The requirement of a pending suit with a permanent injunction prayer applies strictly only to applications brought solely under Order 41 Rule 2.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Principles for Grant — Prima Facie Case and Triable Issues
For a temporary injunction to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate: (i) a prima facie case or triable issue with probability of success; (ii) that unless an injunction is granted, the applicant will suffer irreparable injury which damages cannot atone; (iii) need to maintain the status quo; and (iv) in case of doubt, that the balance of convenience favours the applicant. A prima facie case is established if the court is satisfied that there are serious questions to be tried between the parties, not that the case must succeed.
Civil Procedure — Status Quo — Definition and Purpose
Status quo denotes the existing state of affairs before a given point in time. In land matters, status quo is purely a question of fact, and the relevant consideration is the point in time at which acts complained of occurred or are threatened. The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo by ensuring the subject matter of litigation is not destroyed or irreversibly altered before trial, and to protect the applicant's rights from being defeated by acts of the respondent before trial.
Civil Procedure — Review — Third Party Standing — Inherent Powers
Under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and the inherent powers of the court, a third party who was not a party to the original suit, application or order may apply for review if that person proves to the court that they have an interest or right in the subject matter of the dispute and are aggrieved by the decision.
Land & Property — Temporary Injunctions — Fresh Construction During Pendency of Dispute
Where respondents commence fresh construction, fencing and other development on disputed land after notice of adverse claims and during the pendency of legal proceedings challenging their title, such conduct alters the status quo and warrants grant of a temporary injunction to halt further construction and dealings with the land pending final determination of the dispute.
Civil Procedure — Balance of Convenience — Preservation of Status Quo versus Possession
The balance of convenience should be resolved in favour of the person likely to suffer more if the status quo is altered or the order is not granted. While possession is a relevant consideration, it is not determinative. Where a person is likely to be irreversibly deprived of their claimed interest if the property is sold, mortgaged or substantially altered during the pendency of the main suit, the balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo even if the other party is currently in physical occupation.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (12)

  • Soroti Municipal Council v Akello Juliet & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 014 of 2020)
  • Twaha Luyimbazi Katongole v The Liquidator of Green Land Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 1117 of 2000)
  • Kagwa Vs Katende (1985) HCB 43
  • Odido Vs Label (EA) Ltd, (1978) HCB 77
  • Daniel Jakisa & 2 Others v Kyambogo University (Miscellaneous Application No. 549 of 2013)
  • Makerere University v Omumbejja Namusisi Farida Naluwembe Namirembe Bwanga (Miscellaneous Application No. 658 of 2013)
  • Samwiri Masa Versus Rose Achan
  • Digital Solutions Limited v MTN Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 546 of 2004)
  • Kiyimba Kagwa versus Haji Katende (1985) HCB 43
  • Kiyimba Kagwa Vs Haji Abdu Nasser Katende (1985) HCB 43
  • Ladak Abdulla Muhammad Hussein v Griffith Isingoma Kakiiza & 2 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • Mushabe Appolo v Mutumba & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 08 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pulle_&_Another_v_Pulle_&_5_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_3799_of_2023)_[2024]_UGHCLD_195_(23_July_2024)
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.