Wakilii

Rwabutara and Others v National Forestry Authority and Another (Civil Appeal 22 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 164 · 2023 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from decision of Assistant Registrar dismissing application for temporary injunction
Decision
Temporary injunction granted permitting appellants to remain in possession with restricted activities pending trial

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 appeal succeeds. The Assistant Registrar erred by importing facts not pleaded by the first respondent and by delving into the merits of whether the suit land was part of a forest reserve. The appellants, as registered proprietors in physical possession since 2011, had a prima facie case and would suffer irreparable damage if evicted. A temporary injunction was granted permitting continued possession and specified agricultural activities while restraining construction, charcoal burning and tree felling pending trial.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted permitting appellants to remain in possession with restricted activities pending trial

Facts

The appellants are registered proprietors of land comprised in formerly Buruli Block 169, Plot 9, which they acquired in 2011 from Eridadi Kigayaza who had obtained a lease from Nakasongola District Land Board in 2005. The appellants have been in physical possession since 2011, carrying out cattle and goat rearing, cultivation of cassava, mangoes, sugarcane, and tree planting. The National Forestry Authority claims the suit land is part of Kasagala Forest Reserve and approached the appellants in November 2022 forbidding them from using the land. The appellants filed a main suit for trespass and an application for a temporary injunction. The Assistant Registrar dismissed the application on 3 March 2023. The appellants appealed that decision.

Issues

  1. Whether the application was filed under wrong procedure.
  2. Whether the Assistant Registrar properly evaluated the evidence in refusing the temporary injunction.
  3. Whether the appellants demonstrated a prima facie case with probability of success.
  4. Whether the appellants would suffer irreparable damage if the temporary injunction were not granted.
  5. Where the balance of convenience lies.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Ruling of the Assistant Registrar dated 3.3.2023 in Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 2022 set aside.
  • The appellants will continue in possession of the suit land undisturbed.
  • The appellants are forbidden from carrying out any further construction of permanent structures on the suit land.
  • The appellants are forbidden from engaging in charcoal burning and felling trees on the suit land.
  • The appellants shall restrict their economic activities to cattle and goat rearing; cultivation including tree planting; cultivation of crops such as cassava, maize, sugarcane, mango and any other crops on the suit land.
  • The first respondent is restrained from interfering with the appellants' use of the land as listed above.
  • The second respondent, Commissioner Land Registration, is restrained from effecting any changes in the registration of the appellants as proprietors until the determination of Civil Suit No. HCT-17-LD-CS-0212-2022.
  • The applicants will take immediate steps to take out a summons for directions so that the case is scheduled in preparation for hearing in the first quarter of 2024.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Right of Appeal from Registrar's Decision — Order 50 rule 8
Under Section 76(1)(h) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a party aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar made under Order 41 has a right of appeal to the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Purpose
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to protect the property from waste, alienation or damage regardless of the litigants' claim to it, pending determination of the suit, and to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for Grant — Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Damage, Balance of Convenience
Before granting a temporary injunction, the court must be satisfied that: (i) there is a prima facie case with a probability of success; (ii) the applicant will suffer irreparable damage which would not be adequately compensated by an award of damages if the injunction is denied. If the court is in doubt, it may grant the application on the balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Assessment of Irreparable Damage — Registered Proprietor in Possession
Where applicants are registered proprietors who have been in physical possession for more than a decade and have carried out economic activities on the land, they will suffer irreparable damage if evicted pending trial, as such damage cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Improper Evaluation of Evidence — Court Importing Facts Not Pleaded
A court determining an application for a temporary injunction errs when it imports facts not pleaded by the parties in the affidavits before it. The court must confine itself to the evidence on record.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Delving into Merits — Determination of Substantive Rights
A court hearing an application for a temporary injunction errs when it delves into the merits of the substantive suit and makes findings on disputed facts that should be determined at trial. The question of whether suit land forms part of a forest reserve is a triable issue to be determined during the trial, not on an interlocutory application.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Fr. Narcensio Begumisa v Erci Tibegaga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Byaruhanga and Two Others v Kabagahya (MA No. 564 of 2016)
  • Commodity Trading Industries v Uganda Maize Industries and another [2001-2005] HCB 118
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (HCCS No. 630 of 1993)
  • Kiyimba Kagwa v Katende [1985] HCB 43

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwabutara and Others v National Forestry Authority and Another (Civil Appeal 22 of 2023) [2023] UGHC 164 (30 November 2023)
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.