Wakilii

Sunstone Limited v Nakamya & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No 1674 of 2017)

High Court · [2018] UGHCLD 48 · 2018 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from pending civil suit
Decision
Temporary injunction granted preserving status quo pending disposal of the main suit

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from disposing, alienating, or constructing on disputed land pending the main suit. Applicant demonstrated a prima facie case by showing it had entered into a sale agreement and paid the first instalment, creating an interest requiring protection. Although the claim for damages suggested compensable injury, the risk of alienation or waste justified preserving the status quo. Balance of convenience favoured the applicant, as allowing construction would create greater inconvenience if the main suit succeeded in the applicant's favour.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted preserving status quo pending disposal of the main suit

Facts

Sunstone Limited entered into a sale agreement with Nakamya Robinah (1st Respondent) to purchase land at UGX 200,000,000. The applicant paid a first instalment of UGX 30,000,000 and awaited delivery of the certificate of title and vacant possession. Before completion, the 1st Respondent sold portions of the land to Mwereri Lukman (2nd Respondent) for UGX 200,000,000 and UGX 50,000,000 respectively. The 2nd Respondent took possession, fenced the land, joined it to his adjacent property, and commenced construction. A counterclaim was filed in the main suit alleging the applicant breached the agreement and conspired to defraud the 1st Respondent. The applicant sought a temporary injunction to restrain further dealing with the land pending disposal of the main suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success in the main suit.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the temporary injunction were not granted.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of a temporary injunction.
  4. Whether the status quo should be preserved pending disposal of the main suit.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is granted restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants, or employees from disposing of, alienating, or wasting the suit land comprised in Kibuga Block No. 7 Plot No. 1886 at Musoke Zone, Sebyala Road, Katwe Makindye, or interfering with the Applicant's use of the suit land, or carrying on construction work on the suit land pending the hearing and disposal of Civil Suit No. 838 of 2017.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Purchaser's Interest in Land
An applicant who enters into a sale agreement for land and pays a deposit acquires an interest in the property sufficient to establish a prima facie case for a temporary injunction, even where title has not yet been transferred.
Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Prayer for Damages
Where a plaint contains a prayer for damages, the injury is presumed to be compensable in monetary terms and does not constitute irreparable injury within the meaning of the law governing temporary injunctions.
Temporary Injunctions — Preservation of Status Quo — Risk of Alienation or Waste
A temporary injunction may be granted to preserve the status quo where the subject property is at risk of being alienated or wasted through construction or disposal, even if the injury would otherwise be compensable in damages.
Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Construction on Disputed Land
In assessing balance of convenience, where a respondent has commenced construction on disputed land, the inconvenience to an applicant in restoring the property if the main suit succeeds outweighs the inconvenience to a respondent of halting construction pending determination of title.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (7)

  • Nitco Ltd v Hope Nyakairu (1992-93 HCB 135)
  • Nambi v Bujingo and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1015 of 2015)
  • Green Watch and Another v Golf Holdings Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 390 of 2001)
  • David Barikirahakye versus AG & Others
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Katende (1985) HCB 43
  • Digital Solutions Ltd v MTN Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 546 of 2004)
  • Godfrey Sekitoleko and Others v Seezi Mutabazi (2001-2005) HCB Vol. 380

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sunstone_Limited_v_Nakamya_&_Anor_(Miscellaneous_Application_No_1674_of_2017)_[2018]_UGHCLD_48_(24_May_2018)
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.