Sempebwa v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Application No.1512 of 2014)

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.

Holding

Held that a temporary injunction should issue to restrain demolition where a serious question exists for trial and the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo, but only where the applicant demonstrates compliance with statutory building plan requirements. The applicant was granted a conditional injunction requiring him to produce approved building plans within 21 days, failing which the injunction would automatically expire.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted on condition that applicant produce approved building plans within 21 days; applicant at liberty to pursue merits in main suit

Facts

The applicant claimed to be in possession of land comprised in Plot 4893 Block 244 and faced imminent eviction and demolition by the respondent, Kampala Capital City Authority. On 8 December 2014, the respondent issued a notice for demolition against the applicant on the grounds that the developments on the suit land had no approved building plans, were in a dilapidated state, had been erected on Kikubamutwe Road, Tank Hill, and contravened physical planning and public health laws. The applicant filed suit seeking a permanent injunction, damages in trespass, and costs, and simultaneously applied for a temporary injunction to restrain demolition pending determination of the main suit. The land certificate was registered in the name of Peter Mukasa Kakembo, not the applicant, though the applicant's occupation of the land was undisputed. The applicant argued that he purchased the land after the developments were already erected and that there was no encroachment on any road.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success sufficient to warrant a temporary injunction.
2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the temporary injunction were not granted.
3. Whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from demolishing the applicant's developments.

Orders

• Temporary injunction granted restraining the respondent from demolishing the applicant's developments on the suit land.
• The temporary injunction is conditional upon the applicant producing approved building plans or permits from the respondent within 21 days.
• If the applicant fails to produce approved building plans within 21 days, the temporary injunction shall automatically expire.
• Each party to bear their own costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 r.1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 r.9
• Kampala City Authority Act 2010
• Physical Planning Act 2010
• Public Health Act Cap 281

Cases cited (8)

• American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
• E.L.T Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Katende [1985] HCB 43
• Prof. Peter Anyang Nyo & Ors v The Attorney General of Kenya & Ors (East African Court of Justice Case Ref. No. 1 of 2006)
• Robert Kavuma v M/S Hotel International (SCCA No. 8 of 1990)
• Godfrey Sekitoleko & Ors v Seezi Mutabazi [2001-2005] HCB Vol. 380
• Commodity Trading Industries v Uganda Maize Trading Industries [2001-2005] HCB 119
• Herbert Kabunga Traders v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (HCMA 159 of 2012)
• Gapco (U) Ltd v Kaweesa Badru & Anor (Miscellaneous Application 259 of 2013)

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