State Wide Insurance Company Limited v Kisozi Complex (U) Limited and Others [2025] UGHC 311
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 for six months restraining the respondents from dealing with land comprised in Kyeitaba Kyadondo Block 246 and its subdivided plots, finding that the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case, would suffer irreparable damage if caveats were removed during the pendency of the main suit, and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo until the substantive dispute over title could be resolved.
Outcome
Temporary injunction granted for six months to preserve status quo pending expedited hearing of main suit
Facts
The applicant claimed to have purchased land comprised in Kyeitaba Kyadondo Block 246 Plot 247 in 1986 from the registered proprietor and was registered as proprietor on 13 November 1986. Around 2015, the 1st respondent allegedly interfered with the applicant's possession by procuring registration as proprietor through fraudulent means, then subdividing the land and transferring portions to third parties. The applicant lodged multiple caveats on the subdivided plots and instituted Civil Suit No. 590 of 2017 seeking cancellation of the respondents' certificates of title. In October 2024, the applicant received notice that the 1st respondent had applied to remove the caveats. The applicant sought a temporary injunction to prevent removal of the caveats and further dealing with the disputed land pending resolution of the main suit. The respondents denied applying for caveat removal and the 7th respondent claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of one of the subdivided plots.
Issues
- Whether the applicant should be granted a temporary injunction to restrain dealing with disputed land pending the hearing of the main suit.
- Whether the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success.
- Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable damage if the temporary injunction is not granted.
- Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of a temporary injunction.
Orders
- Temporary injunction granted restraining the respondents, their officials, agents or any persons claiming title thereunder from sale, mortgage, transfer, alienation, disposition, demolition or any other form of interference with the property comprised in land at Kyeitaba Kyadondo Block 246 Plots 2159, 2152, 2158, 2096, 2155, 2149 and all other properties subdivided from land formerly comprised in Kyeitaba Kyadondo Block 246 Plot 247.
- Temporary injunction granted for six months only, subject to renewal from date of delivery of ruling.
- Main trial to be heard in an expeditious manner.
- Each party to bear their own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Judicature Act Cap 16 s.38
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.64(c)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.41 r.2
Cases cited (6)
- Sarqat us Patel (1949) 16 EACA 63
- GApco Uganda Ltd v Kaweesa & Anor (Misc. App. No. 259 of 2013)
- Viola Aiok and Anor v Andrews Ojok and Anor (Misc. App. No. 179 of 2007)
- Prof. Peter Anyang' Nyong'O & Others v The Attorney General of Kenya & Others (EACJ Case Ref. No. 1 of 2006)
- American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] ALLER 504
- Kivumba Kaggua v Hajji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.