Settaba v Kizito and Anor (Civil Appeal No. 452 of 2021)

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 the appeal against the Deputy Registrar's refusal to grant a temporary injunction. The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable injury that could not be adequately compensated by damages, a necessary condition for granting a temporary injunction. The injury alleged by the appellant was quantified at UGX 125,000,000 and could be properly compensated in monetary terms. The court found that the status quo had changed with structures already demolished, and the business environment had become hostile due to the breakdown in relations between the parties. The court also held that it was not irregular for the Deputy Registrar to have dismissed the application on a preliminary objection without addressing all other matters raised, as those matters would have been moot following dismissal.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; application for temporary injunction remains refused

Facts

The appellant filed Civil Suit No. 984 of 2020 against the respondents seeking compensation of UGX 125,000,000 for investments in land he occupied under licence, and alternatively a five-year licence to continue occupation to recover his investment. He applied for a temporary injunction (M.A. No. 1100 of 2020) to restrain eviction pending the main suit. The Deputy Registrar dismissed the application on a preliminary objection that there was no prayer for a permanent injunction in the plaint. The appellant appealed, arguing that the Deputy Registrar erred in dismissing the application and failed to rule on his preliminary objection regarding defective affidavits. During the appeal, preliminary objections were raised that the main suit had abated for failure to extract summons for directions, and that the appellant's affidavit was defective under the Illiterates Protection Act. Some structures erected by the appellant on the land had already been demolished by the time of the appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the learned Deputy Registrar erred when she did not make a finding on the appellant's preliminary objection that the respondent's affidavits were null and void or defective for lack of a proper jurat.
2. Whether the learned Deputy Registrar erred when she held that there was no prayer for a permanent injunction in the appellant's main suit and dismissed the application for temporary injunction.
3. Whether the learned Deputy Registrar erred when she held that the appellant's prayers in the main suit are compensatory in nature.
4. Whether the main suit had abated for failure to take out summons for directions within twenty-eight days.
5. Whether the affidavit in support of the appeal was defective for offending the Illiterates Protection Act.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• No order as to costs given the unique facts and circumstances.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (14)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 rule 8
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 11A rule 1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 11A rule 1(6)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 rule 1(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 rule 19
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 1(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 28
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 rule 2
• Illiterates Protection Act Cap 78 s.2
• Illiterates Protection Act Cap 78 s.3
• Illiterates Protection Act Cap 78 s.4
• Oaths Act Cap 19

Cases cited (11)

• E.L.T Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
• Carlton Douglas Kasirye v Sheena Ahumuza Bageine (HCMA No. 150 of 2020)
• Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd and Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2015)
• Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Ssenyonjo Moses (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2015)
• Mohammed Majambere v Bakhresa Khalil (HCMA No. 727 of 2011)
• Miao Huxian v Crane Bank Ltd and Anor (HCMA No. 76 of 2016)
• Nyarukanga v Esso Ltd [1992] 1 KAR
• IMSC v Sheikh Mulumba [1980] HCB 110
• Twaha Luvimbazi Katongole v The Liquidator of Greenland Bank (HCMA No. 1117 of 2000)
• Nakiwala and 2 Others v Rwekibira and Anor (Civil Suit No. 280 of 2006)
• Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Kinyara Sugar Limited and Another v Kwegondeza Juliet (Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2019)
• Ojiambo v Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application 197 of 2022)

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