Wakilii

Sserwadda Abdu Karim v Shah Developments Uganda Limited (CIVIL SUIT NO. 1516 OF 2023; MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1431 OF 2025; MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 3823 OF 2023) [2026]

High Court · Sserwadda_Abdu_Karim_v_Shah_Developments_Uganda_Limited_(CIVIL_SUIT_NO._1516_OF_2023;_MISCELLANEOUS_APPLICATION_NO._1431_OF_2025;_MISCELLANEOUS_APPLICATION_NO._3823_OF_2023)_[2026] Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of Registrar's order granting temporary injunction
Decision
Application struck out as procedurally incompetent

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

Held that an application for review under Order 46 Civil Procedure Rules is not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge a Registrar's order granting a temporary injunction. The correct procedure is an appeal under section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act. The application was incompetent and dismissed. Service via WhatsApp constitutes valid electronic service under the Constitution (Integration of ICT into the Adjudication Processes for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2019.

Outcome

Application struck out as procedurally incompetent

Facts

In 2023, the Applicant, claiming to act under a 2016 Power of Attorney from Tanansi Zibalaba (the registered proprietor), physically re-entered land comprised in Kyadondo Block 208 Plot 1129 and procured the Commissioner Land Registration to note Zibalaba's re-entry on the leasehold register, thereby removing the Respondent's leasehold interest. The Applicant asserted that the Respondent's title derived from a fraudulent chain of transfers following an unconditional surrender of lease in 1999. The Respondent, registered as proprietor since 2012 and in continuous possession for over 20 years, filed Civil Suit No. 1516 of 2023 for trespass and obtained a temporary injunction restraining the Applicant from interfering with its possession. The Applicant applied to set aside the temporary injunction on grounds he was not served with the application and that the court was misled as to the status of the title. The Respondent produced an affidavit of service showing service was effected electronically via WhatsApp on 20 December 2023. The re-entry was noted on the register on 17 January 2024, after the interim order had been granted.

Issues

  1. Whether the Application discloses any grounds to warrant review of the Order in Miscellaneous Application No. 3823 of 2023.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review — Proper Procedure to Challenge Registrar's Order
The proper procedure for challenging a Registrar's order, whether interlocutory or final, is by way of appeal or revision to a Judge under section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act, not by review under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Electronic Service via WhatsApp
Service of court process electronically via WhatsApp is recognized as a valid mode of service in accordance with The Constitution (Integration of ICT into the Adjudication Processes for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2019.
Evidence — Proof of Fraud — Requirement for Oral Evidence and Cross-Examination
Allegations of fraudulent transfer of property are grave and must be strictly proved by oral evidence subjected to cross-examination; they cannot be established through affidavit evidence alone.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Biyinzika Enterprises Ltd v Vitafoam (U) Ltd [2008] IICB 123
  • Mugema George v Mungomba Moses & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 063 of 2017)
  • John Imaniraguha v Uganda Revenue Authority & Anor (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_(CIVIL_SUIT_NO._1516_OF_2023;_MISCELLANEOUS_APPLICATION_NO._1431_OF_2025;_MISCELLANEOUS_APPLICATION_NO._3823_OF_2023)_[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.