Ssebagala v Nakubulwa & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 2013)

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 granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from entering upon suit land at Mutugga Lwadda, threatening, evicting, or interrupting the plaintiff's use of the land pending determination of the main suit. The court found the applicant established a prima facie case with probability of success and would suffer irreparable damages if the injunction were not granted. The application proceeded exparte as respondents, though served, failed to file replies or appear.

Outcome

Application allowed with temporary injunction granted pending hearing of main suit

Facts

The applicant claimed use and possession of approximately 7 acres of land at Mutugga Lwadda A. A civil suit was pending before the High Court Land Division concerning this land. The applicant alleged the respondents were entering upon the land, threatening and committing acts of trespass that endangered the land and would cause irreparable injury. The respondents were served with the application but failed to file affidavits in reply or appear at the hearing. A Member of Parliament had written to the Inspector of Courts alleging the plaintiff and lawyers had not served the defendants and were using police to threaten the defendants, but the court record showed proof of service. The application proceeded exparte.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from entering, threatening, evicting, or interrupting the applicant's use of the suit land pending determination of the main suit.

Orders

• Temporary injunction granted restraining the respondents from entering upon the suit land at Mutugga Lwadda A, threatening, evicting, or interrupting the plaintiff's use of the suit land until the main suit is heard and fully determined.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 rule 9

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Jotena (U) Ltd v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 43 of 2011)

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