Ssanyu v Bukorwe (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 3 of 2022)
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 judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the court's determination or holding. The document ends abruptly after stating the court will answer the grounds of appeal jointly, but before providing any substantive ruling on the merits of the appeal.
Outcome
Judgment Incomplete
Facts
The appellant, as administratrix of her deceased husband's estate, instituted a suit for trespass to land and unlawful registration against the respondent concerning land previously registered in her husband's name (Buddu Block plot 54 measuring 40.46 hectares). The appellant successfully obtained a temporary injunction from the Deputy Registrar. Subsequently, the Deputy Registrar varied the temporary injunction, allegedly for the appellant changing the status quo. The variation orders included restraining the appellant from using the suit land and allowing the respondent to cultivate it, despite the appellant's claim of having been in occupation since 2004 and using the land for grazing cattle. The appellant appealed the Deputy Registrar's decision to vary the temporary injunction on four grounds.
Issues
- Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in law and fact when she ordered that the respondent should cultivate the suit property and the appellant's livestock should not roam on the suit property.
- Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in making orders that contradicted the order to maintain the status quo.
- Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in failing to revisit the locus before making her final orders.
- Whether the Deputy Registrar had the power to vary her own earlier order granting a temporary injunction.
Legislation cited (5)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 139
- Civil Procedure Rules SI-71 Order 50 rule 8
- Judicature Act Cap 13 s.16
- Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 rule 3
Cases cited (2)
- Oloka Onyango and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2014)
- Kiyimba Kaggwa Vs Haji Abdul Nasser Katende (1985) HCB
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.