Richard Biikeiiya and Another v Nabukera Irene (Miscellaneous Application No. 389 of 2025)

Observed later treatment

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 High Court dismissed an application for mandatory injunction seeking to restrain interference with suit land and restore its status quo pending determination of the main suit. The court held that applicants failed to prove special or exceptional circumstances warranting a mandatory temporary injunction, noting that mandatory injunctions are ordinarily remedies in finality requiring full hearing. The court directed the Registrar to visit the suit land and establish status quo, with authority to issue temporary injunction if necessary.

Outcome

Application dismissed with direction for Registrar to establish status quo and main suit fixed for hearing

Facts

The applicants, administrators of the estate of the late Joyce Nayiga, sought mandatory injunctions to restrain the respondent from interfering with suit land comprising Kyadondo Block 256 Plots 78246, 78247 and 78248, and to restore the land's status to its former designation as Kyadondo Block 256 Plot 7334. The application arose from Civil Suit No. 920 of 2016, which had been filed during Joyce Nayiga's lifetime. The suit had proceeded to preparation for hearing stage, and when the court was ready to commence hearing, the applicants filed this application, which stalled completion of the main suit. The respondent opposed the application, contending that applicants had no prima facie case and that the application was brought in bad faith and constituted abuse of court process.

Issues

1. Whether Court can issue a mandatory injunction against the Respondent restraining her and her agents from interfering with the suit land until the determination of the main suit?
2. Whether the court can restore the status quo of the suit land Block 256 plots 78246, 78247, 78248 to Block 265, plot 7334 Kyadondo pending the determination of the main suit Civil Suit No. 920 of 2016?
3. What are the available remedies?

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Each party to bear their own costs.
• Registrar to visit the suit land and establish the current status quo.
• If necessary, the Registrar should issue a temporary injunction maintaining the status quo and ensuring that all parties and any third party does not interfere with the suit land until the determination of the main suit.
• Main suit Civil Suit No. 920 of 2016 fixed for hearing on 16th February 2026 at 12:00pm.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (4)

• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 47 rule 2(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 47 rule 2(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 47 rule 9

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Nakalema Hellen and Another v Mascot Logistics Limited (Consolidated Miscellaneous Application No. 343 and 389 of 2025)

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