Wakilii

The Registered Trustees of Child Restoration Outreach v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 46 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 418 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for temporary injunction arising from Land Suit No. 18 of 2024
Decision
Temporary injunction granted maintaining status quo pending determination of Land Suit No. 18 of 2024

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 respondents from interfering with the applicant's possession of disputed land pending determination of the substantive suit. The court held that the applicant established a prima facie case requiring judicial investigation, would suffer irreparable injury through displacement of tenants and disruption of its street children rehabilitation programme, and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo where the applicant had been in possession since 1993.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted maintaining status quo pending determination of Land Suit No. 18 of 2024

Facts

The applicant claimed to have purchased leasehold property at Plot 15-17 Bishop Wasike Road, Mbale in November 1993 from former proprietors who had repossessed it from the 1st respondent in February 1993. The applicant obtained a certificate of title in December 1995 and occupied the property without interference, housing tenants and operating a street children rehabilitation programme. In January 2024, the applicant was summoned to a meeting where it learned that the 1st respondent had sold the same property to the 2nd respondent, who obtained a certificate of title in December 2023. The 2nd respondent, through advocates and police, demanded rent from the applicant's tenants and threatened eviction. The 1st respondent maintained it lawfully sold the property to the 2nd respondent as it had never been properly repossessed. Two competing certificates of title exist over the same plot. The applicant filed Land Suit No. 18 of 2024 and this interlocutory application for temporary injunction.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
  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 the temporary injunction.

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is issued maintaining the status quo and restraining the Respondents, their work men, agents and servants or persons acting under them from interfering, transferring, registering, wasting, damaging, alienating, selling, removal or disposition, distribution, construction, eviction of the Applicant's tenants and children under its care or any form of developments on the suit property until the final determination of Land Suit No. 18 of 2024.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Injunctions — Prima Facie Case
To establish a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction, the court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing and a probability of the plaintiff obtaining relief at the conclusion of trial. The court at the initial stage cannot insist upon full proof warranting an eventual decree.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Injunctions — Three-Stage Test
The conditions for granting an interlocutory injunction are: first, the applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success; secondly, an interlocutory injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated by damages; thirdly, if the court is in doubt, it will decide the application on the balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Injunctions — Irreparable Injury
Irreparable injury does not mean there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Injunctions — Balance of Convenience
In determining where the balance of convenience lies, the court must weigh which of the parties will suffer greater injury if the injunction is not granted. The balance of convenience varies from case to case, and the court considers whether justice would best be served by an order of injunction.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Injunctions — Status Quo — Definition and Purpose
Status quo means the existing state of things at any given time. The main duty of the court in interlocutory applications is to preserve the existing situation pending disposal of the substantive suit. In exercising this duty, the court does not determine legal rights to property but merely preserves it in its actual condition until legal title or ownership can be established.
Land & Property — Competing Titles — Interlocutory Relief
Where two parties hold competing certificates of title over the same property and one party has been in continuous possession for an extended period, the court may grant an interlocutory injunction to maintain the status quo pending determination of the substantive dispute over title, especially where the party in possession would suffer irreparable injury through eviction.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] 1 EA 358
  • Smt. Saroj Jasuja Vs M/S Signature Infracom Pvt. Ltd CS No 175/13 (2014)
  • Gujart Electricity Board Gandhinagar Vs Maheshkumar and Co (1995) SCC545
  • Lanco Hills Technology Park Private Limited Vs Mahaboob Alam Khan and others CRP NOS 4958 of 2007 (2012)
  • Nitco Ltd Vs Hope Nyakairu (1992-1993 HCB 135)
  • Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd AIR 1999
  • Bhart Coklng Colal Ltd Vs State of Bihar and others 1988 AIR 127
  • Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing Board [1984] AC 130

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

The Registered Trustees of Child Restoration Outreach v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 46 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 418 (7 June 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.