Wakilii

Rwera Patrick v Abdul Ddumba and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1687 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 183 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 1671 of 2025 (review application) which itself arises from Civil Suit No. 0058 of 2015
Decision
Temporary injunction granted maintaining status quo with 1st Respondent in possession but restrained from further development or disposal pending determination of 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

The court granted a temporary injunction maintaining the status quo on land comprised in Kyadondo Block 265 Plot 8410 at Bunamwaya. The applicant, who was registered as proprietor in 2020 but lost the property through a 2024 judgment in proceedings to which he was not a party, demonstrated an arguable case for review and risk of irreparable harm. The court found that the applicant satisfied the American Cyanamid test for temporary injunctions and restrained the respondents from developing, selling, or disposing of the land pending determination of the review application.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted maintaining status quo with 1st Respondent in possession but restrained from further development or disposal pending determination of review application

Facts

The applicant was registered as proprietor of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 265 Plot 8410 at Bunamwaya on 1 March 2020, having purchased it from Kawere William for UGX 130,000,000. On 18 November 2024, the High Court in HCCS No. 0058 of 2015 declared that the same land belonged to the 1st respondent, Abdul Ddumba. The applicant was not a party to that suit, which had been ongoing for nine years. The applicant filed a review application (HCMA No. 1671 of 2025) challenging the judgment. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent began developing the land by placing a metallic container, laying a foundation, raising walls, and replacing the applicant's wire mesh fence with iron sheets. The applicant then sought a temporary injunction to preserve the property pending determination of the review.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success in the review application.
  2. Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable damage if the temporary injunction is denied.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of a temporary injunction.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is hereby issued maintaining the status quo on the suit property comprised in Kyadondo Block 265 Plot 8410 land at Bunamwaya measuring approximately 0.0810 hectares, the status quo being that the 1st Respondent is in possession and occupation of the same.
  • An order is issued restraining the Respondents, their agents, legal representatives, assignees and any person deriving authority from them from developing by way of construction, selling, subdivision and or transferring the suit land and or disposing it off in any manner until the hearing and determination of HCMA No. 1671 of 2025.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.
  • HCMA No. 1688 of 2025 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Purpose — Preservation of Status Quo
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo in respect of the matter in dispute until the determination of the whole dispute. The status quo denotes the existing state of affairs immediately before a given particular point in time.
Temporary Injunctions — American Cyanamid Test — Prima Facie Case
An applicant for a temporary injunction must show a prima facie case with a probability of success. An arguable case is not one which must necessarily succeed but one which ought to be argued before the court, one which is not frivolous.
Registered Proprietorship — Judgment Affecting Non-Party — Arguable Case for Review
Where a person is registered as proprietor of land but subsequently loses the property through a judgment in proceedings to which he was not a party, he demonstrates an arguable case for review sufficient to satisfy the prima facie case requirement for a temporary injunction.
Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Damage — Land in Prime Location
Irreparable injury means injury that is substantial or material, one that cannot be adequately compensated for in damages. Where land is situated in a prime location and a fair replacement might not be easy to come by, and where the purchase price paid has been significantly devalued by inflation over time, the applicant will suffer substantial loss if unable to recover the property, satisfying the irreparable damage requirement.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende (1985) HCB 43
  • Humphrey Nzeyi v Bank of Uganda and Another (Constitutional Application No. 0002 of 2013)
  • Godfrey Sekitoleko and Others v Seezi Mutabaazi and Others (2001-2005) HCB 80
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • Kangethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter and 5 Others [2013] KLR
  • Emorani Yusuf v Nakendo Hajarah (HCMA No. 0478 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwera_Patrick_v_Abdul_Ddumba_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1687_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_183_(11_August_2025)
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.