Wakilii

Shandong Hi-Speed Group (SDHS) and Others v Watsyeli Boniface and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 215 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1424 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Deputy Registrar's ruling granting temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 175 of 2025, arising from Land Civil Suit No. 057 of 2025
Decision
Deputy Registrar's orders set aside; matter to proceed to hearing of main suit

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 High Court held that the Deputy Registrar erred in striking off the affidavit of the company's Deputy Manager on grounds of lack of authorization, as under Order 19 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules a principal officer with knowledge of the facts may depone on behalf of a company without express powers of attorney. The court further held that orders requiring installation of a digital weigh bridge and payment per truck interfered with the status quo and were made suo motu on matters not pleaded. The appeal was allowed and the Deputy Registrar's orders set aside.

Outcome

Deputy Registrar's orders set aside; matter to proceed to hearing of main suit

Facts

The respondents filed Land Civil Suit No. 057 of 2025 against the appellants alleging trespass and fraudulent acts over suit land. The respondents subsequently filed Miscellaneous Application No. 175 of 2025 seeking a temporary injunction. At the time of the application, the appellants were in possession of the suit land carrying on commercial activities including construction and stone quarrying for a Government road construction contract. The Deputy Registrar granted temporary injunction orders including requiring the 1st appellant to install a digital weigh bridge within one month, pay UGX 250,000 per truck loaded, and allow representatives of both parties at the quarry site. The Deputy Registrar also struck off the affidavit in reply deponed by the 2nd appellant, Kiiza Stephen, who was the Deputy Manager of the 1st appellant company, on grounds that he lacked authorization to depose on behalf of the company. The appellants appealed against these orders.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned Deputy Registrar erred in law and fact when he failed to evaluate the evidence on record by issuing the orders hence causing the miscarriage of justice
  2. Whether the Deputy Registrar properly struck off the affidavit in reply deponed by the 2nd Appellant Stephen Kiiza for lack of authorization
  3. Whether the orders requiring installation of a digital weigh bridge, payment of UGX 250,000 per truck, and presence of respondents' representatives interfered with the status quo
  4. Whether the Deputy Registrar made orders suo motu that were not pleaded by the parties
  5. Whether the Deputy Registrar delved into the merits of the main suit

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • The ruling and orders of the Deputy Registrar in Miscellaneous Application No. 175 of 2025 set aside.
  • Costs of the appeal to abide the outcome of the main suit.
  • Parties advised to expedite the pretrial process to ensure the main suit is fixed for hearing.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Capacity to Depone on Behalf of Company — Principal Officer
Under Order 19 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, in a suit by or against a corporation any pleading may be signed on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case. A Deputy Manager who oversees the company's activities and is in direct control of operations is a principal officer capable of deposing to facts on behalf of the company without express powers of attorney or other authorization.
Evidence — Affidavits — Representative Capacity — Knowledge Rather Than Authorization
The primary consideration for one to depone an affidavit on behalf of a company is whether the deponent falls among the described officers who are able to depose to the facts of a particular case on behalf of the company. What is required in affidavits is the knowledge or belief of the deponent, rather than authorization by a party to the litigation.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Status Quo — Interference
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve matters in status quo until the question to be investigated in the suit can be finally disposed of. The status quo is the existing state of affairs during the period immediately preceding the application for an interlocutory injunction. Orders that interfere with the prevailing status quo by imposing new obligations on a party in possession are contrary to the purpose of temporary injunctions.
Civil Procedure — Relief — Unpleaded Matters — Court Cannot Grant Relief Not Pleaded
It is a cardinal principle in judicial process that in adjudicating a suit, the trial court must base its decision and orders on the pleadings and issues contested before it. Founding a court's decision or relief on unpleaded matter or issue not properly placed before it for determination is an error in law. A court cannot grant a remedy to a party which has not been pleaded in a suit or claim.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Prima Facie Case Distinguished from Prima Facie Title
In exercising its jurisdiction to protect legal rights to property from irreparable or serious damage pending trial, the court does not determine the legal rights to property but merely preserves in its actual condition until the legal title or ownership can be established or declared. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established on evidence at the trial.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (9)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Shandong Hi-Speed Group (SDHS) and Others v Watsyeli Boniface and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 215 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 1424 (29 December 20
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.