Wakilii

Sserwanga and Another v Commissioner for Land Registration (Civil Miscellaneous Application 56 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 691 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from a chain of miscellaneous applications stemming from Civil Suit No. 38 of 2008
Decision
Temporary injunction granted pending determination of the main application

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 granted a temporary injunction restraining the Commissioner for Land Registration from altering proprietorship of land comprised in Butambala Block 59 Plots 95 to 102 pending determination of the main application. The applicants satisfied all three grounds for a temporary injunction: they demonstrated a prima facie case with probability of success, showed they would suffer irreparable injury that cannot be compensated by damages, and established that the balance of convenience favoured them given third party interests and the risk of prejudice if the injunction was refused.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted pending determination of the main application

Facts

The applicants sought a temporary injunction to restrain the Commissioner for Land Registration from altering proprietorship of land comprised in Butambala Block 59 Plots 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 102, formerly Plot 37 at Nyanama, Butambala District. The application arose from a chain of miscellaneous applications stemming from Civil Suit No. 38 of 2008. The first applicant had already subdivided the former Plot 37, and third party interests were involved as there were current registered proprietors. The applicants contended that earlier court orders would be prejudiced if the injunction was not granted and that they faced eminent danger of being deprived of their interests before the main application could be determined.

Issues

  1. Whether a temporary injunction should be granted to restrain the Commissioner for Land Registration from altering proprietorship of the land pending determination of the main application.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • A temporary injunction is issued against the respondent restraining them, their agents, or any person claiming under them any title, right or lien, from altering the proprietorship of land comprised in Butambala Block 59 Plots 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 102 formerly Plot 37 at Nyanama, Butambala District pending the hearing and determination of Miscellaneous Application No. 40 of 2024.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Applications — Temporary Injunctions — Three-Part Test
For a temporary injunction to be granted under Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant must prove three grounds: (a) a prima facie case with a probability of success; (b) that the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated by damages; and (c) where the court is in doubt, the balance of convenience favours the applicant.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Applications — Prima Facie Case — Threshold
In determining whether an applicant has shown a prima facie case with probability of success for purposes of a temporary injunction, the court does not delve deep into the merits but rather determines that there is a plausible case and that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Applications — Balance of Convenience — Burden of Proof
Where doubt exists as to the applicant's right or where the right is not disputed but its violation is denied, the court in determining whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted considers the balance of convenience by weighing the injury the respondent would suffer if the injunction is granted and they ultimately succeed against the injury the applicant would suffer if the injunction is refused and they ultimately succeed. The burden of proof that the inconvenience to the applicant by refusal is greater than the inconvenience to the respondent if granted lies on the applicant.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (3)

  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdul Nasser Katende (1985) HCB 43
  • Daniel Mukwaya v Administrator General (High Court Civil Suit No. 630 of 1993)
  • Jayndrakumar Devechand Devani v Haridas Vallabhdas Bhadresa and Another (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1971)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sserwanga and Another v Commissioner for Land Registration (Civil Miscellaneous Application 56 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 691 (8 April 2024)
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.