Ssempereza v Mukasa and Another (Civil Application 255 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.

Holding

On an application for a temporary injunction restraining dealings in disputed lakeshore land pending a related appeal, the single Justice applied the established conditions: a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable damage, and (only if in doubt) the balance of convenience. The applicant, holding a power of attorney and a financing agreement from the first respondent and a special certificate of title, raised arguable points of law and fact, including whether the impugned consent judgment improperly overturned the High Court decision. The court declined to make definitive findings at the interlocutory stage. It found the unique lakeshore land could not be adequately compensated in damages and ordered the status quo maintained. The injunction was granted.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted; status quo maintained pending determination of Civil Application No. 1272 of 2023

Facts

Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 298 of 2023 arose from High Court Civil Suit No. 673 of 2018, a dispute over land at Kaazi, Busabala (LRV 2357 Folio 15 Kyadondo Block 273 Plot 2585) measuring about 4.053 hectares. During that suit, the first respondent and his deceased co-administrator entered a financing agreement with the applicant, who would finance recovery of the property and was to receive four acres. Judgment in the High Court suit favoured the first respondent. The applicant, holding a power of attorney and a special certificate of title, began sub-dividing the land. The respondents then executed a consent agreement providing that the second respondent's title be restored and the first respondent's title cancelled. The applicant, seeking to protect his interest under the financing agreement and power of attorney, applied for a temporary injunction to preserve the land pending Civil Application No. 1272 of 2023. The second respondent opposed it, arguing the financing agreement was an unenforceable champerty and maintenance arrangement.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success on appeal sufficient to ground a temporary injunction.
2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable damage that could not be adequately compensated in damages if the injunction were not granted.
3. Whether the financing agreement relied on by the applicant was an unenforceable champerty and maintenance agreement that defeated any prima facie case.

Orders

• A temporary injunction is issued restraining the respondents, their agents, representatives, assignees or nominees from selling, transferring, sub-dividing, developing, constructing, leasing, mortgaging or otherwise dealing in or interfering with the land comprised in LRV 2357 Folio 15 Kyadondo Block 273 Plot 2585 at Kaazi, Busabala, or any part thereof, until the hearing and final determination of Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 1272 of 2023.
• Costs shall abide the outcome of Civil Application No. 1272 of 2023.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.43
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.44
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.76

Cases cited (5)

• Robert Kavuma v Hotel International (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1990)
• Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
• Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter & 5 Others [2013] eKLR
• Emorani Yusuf v Nakendo Hajirah (HCMA No. 478 of 2014)
• Giella v Cassman Brown & Co [1973] EA 358

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