Ssekyansanku & 12 Others v Aronda (Miscellaneous Application 196 of 2024)
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 reviewed and set aside a consent temporary injunction order entered in Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2022. The court held that the 1st to 7th applicants, though not parties to the original application, were aggrieved persons affected by the consent order. The 8th to 14th applicants' consent was entered by their advocate without their personal endorsement. The court found it irregular that the Deputy Registrar did not summon all parties to confirm their agreement to the consent terms, and set aside the consent order.
Outcome
Consent temporary injunction order reviewed and set aside
Facts
The respondent sued the 8th to 14th applicants in Civil Suit No. 044 of 2022 seeking declarations of ownership over land comprised in Block 711 Plot 3, Block 710 Plot 19, Block 711 Plot 7 Mubende District and Plot 5 Block 709 Kiboga District, and orders for eviction and damages. The respondent obtained an interim order on 10 February 2022 restraining the defendants from trespassing on the suit land. On 5 July 2022, a consent temporary injunction order was entered maintaining the status quo. The 1st to 7th applicants, who held a representative order for 317 persons affected by the respondent's actions on the suit land, alleged they were evicted following the interim order despite not being parties to the application. They contended that crops and gardens were destroyed and families evicted, supported by correspondence from the Ministry of Lands, State House Anti-Corruption Unit, and food relief delivery by the Office of the Prime Minister. The 8th to 14th applicants challenged the consent order, stating it was signed by their lawyer without their personal endorsement or proper service of summons.
Issues
- Whether the consent temporary injunction orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2022 should be reviewed and set aside.
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- The first prayer for setting aside the interim order issued on 10 February 2022 vide Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2022 was abandoned and allowed with no costs.
- The consent injunction order in Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2022 is hereby reviewed and set aside.
- Each party to bear its own costs of this application.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (13)
- Civil Procedure Act s.82
- Civil Procedure Act s.83
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Judicature Act s.37
- Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.12
- Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.2
- Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.8
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules O.25 r.6
- Civil Procedure Rules O.3 r.1
Cases cited (11)
- Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
- Ladak Abdul Mohammed Hussein v Griffiths Isingoma Kakiiza (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
- Hirani V Kassam (1952) EA 131
- Mohamed Allibhai v W.E Bukenya and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1996)
- Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v UDB (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
- Neville James Stevens v Sandra Stevens (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 368 of 2016)
- Linda Lucia v Nakandi and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 464 of 2019)
- RE Nakivubo Chemist (U) Ltd [1979] HCB 12
- Adonia v Mutekenga [1970] EA 429
- Musisi Nakibinge and Others v Kikulwe Ahmed (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 775 of 2024)
- Friedhelm Erwin Jost and Another v ROKO Construction Limited and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 89 of 2021)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.