Wakilii

Sserwadda Abdu Karim v Shah Developments Uganda Limited [2026] UGHCLD 44

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside/review a temporary injunction order made in an earlier miscellaneous application arising from a pending civil suit for trespass
Decision
Application to set aside the temporary injunction dismissed with costs; the temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 3823 of 2023 stands pending determination of Civil Suit No. 1516 of 2023

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 court held that an application for review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules is the wrong procedural vehicle for challenging an order of a Registrar; the correct route is an appeal to a Judge of the High Court within seven days under section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act, a defect going to jurisdiction and not a mere technicality. The application was therefore incompetent. The court further held that service of the injunction application electronically by WhatsApp was valid under the ICT Practice Directions 2019, and that uncontroverted affidavit evidence of service stood, so no error apparent on the record arose. Allegations of fraudulent transfer required oral evidence in the main suit. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application to set aside the temporary injunction dismissed with costs; the temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 3823 of 2023 stands pending determination of Civil Suit No. 1516 of 2023

Facts

The respondent company was registered as leasehold proprietor of land comprised in LRV 2740 Folio 18, Plot 1129, Block 208 Kyadondo (Kawempe/Bwaise) in October 2012 and developed and let warehouses on it. The applicant, holding powers of attorney from Tanansi Zibalaba, the alleged registered proprietor of the reversion, asserted that an earlier lease had been surrendered in 1999 and later fraudulently transferred, and that the Commissioner Land Registration had noted a re-entry in favour of Zibalaba, removing the respondent from the register. In December 2023 the applicant and others entered the land and required the respondent's tenants to sign new tenancy agreements. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 1516 of 2023 for trespass and obtained an interim order on 22 December 2023 and thereafter a temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 3823 of 2023 restraining interference with its possession until determination of the suit. The applicant applied to set aside that order, contending he had never been served with the injunction application and that the order was obtained on misrepresentation. An affidavit of service showed electronic service by WhatsApp, which was not answered by any affidavit in rejoinder.

Issues

  1. Whether the application disclosed grounds to warrant review or setting aside of the temporary injunction order made in Miscellaneous Application No. 3823 of 2023.
  2. Whether an application for review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules is the correct procedure for challenging an order of a Registrar.
  3. Whether alleged non-service of the application for a temporary injunction amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record.
  4. What remedies were available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Orders of a Registrar — Appeal as the Proper Remedy
An order of a Registrar, whether interlocutory or final, cannot be challenged by an application for review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules; the proper remedy is an appeal to a Judge of the High Court under section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act within seven days of the decision, and use of the wrong vehicle goes to jurisdiction and renders the application incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Electronic Service by WhatsApp
Service of court process by electronic means, including transmission via WhatsApp to a party's telephone contact, is a recognised mode of service in Uganda under The Constitution (Integration of ICT into the Adjudication Processes for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2019.
Civil Procedure — Review — Non-Service as Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
Non-service of process may in some circumstances amount to an error apparent on the face of the record, but the ground fails where an affidavit of service establishes valid service and the applicant files no affidavit in rejoinder to controvert it.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Uncontroverted Averments Deemed Admitted
Averments in an affidavit in reply that are not answered by an affidavit in rejoinder remain uncontroverted and may be accepted by the court as established.
Evidence — Proof of Fraud — Strict Proof by Oral Evidence in the Main Suit
Allegations of fraudulent transfer of land are grave and must be strictly proved by oral evidence tested in cross-examination; they cannot be established on affidavit evidence alone in an interlocutory application and are properly left for determination in the main suit.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Biyinzika Enterprises Ltd v. Vitafoam (U) Ltd [2008] HCB 123
  • Mugema George v Mungomba Moses and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 63 of 2017)
  • John Imaniraguha v Uganda Revenue Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 2770 of 2023)
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 918 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sserwadda Abdu Karim v Shah Developments Uganda Limited [2026] UGHCLD 44 (26 February 2026)
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.