Wakilii

Towerco of Africa Uganda Ltd v Goldmine Finance Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 3019 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 24 · 2026 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 0064 of 2025 (which arose from dismissal of earlier injunction application by Registrar)
Decision
Temporary injunction granted preserving the telecommunications mast pending determination of the appeal

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

The High Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from removing a telecommunications mast pending determination of an appeal. The court held that an application for an injunction pending appeal is distinct from an injunction pending suit and not barred by res judicata. The applicant established a prima facie case based on statutory requirements for 12-month notice before relocating telecommunications infrastructure, would suffer irreparable injury including potential license revocation and breach of long-term contracts, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining public telecommunications services over immediate enforcement of a warrant of attachment.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted preserving the telecommunications mast pending determination of the appeal

Facts

The applicant, a licensed telecommunications infrastructure provider, constructed a mast on mortgaged property at Plot 35, Princess Anne Drive, Bugolobi. The respondent mortgagee obtained judgment in a prior suit (CS 900/2018) and issued a warrant of attachment and sale. On 29 August 2025, the respondent demanded removal of the mast within 30 days. The applicant, not a party to the mortgage suit, filed CS 1142/2025 seeking declarations that the removal demand violated statutory procedures. The applicant's application for temporary injunction (MA 2215/2025) was dismissed by the Registrar on 28 November 2025 on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and that the matter was overtaken by events. The applicant appealed (CA 64/2025) and filed this fresh application for injunction pending determination of that appeal. The respondent opposed, arguing the application was res judicata and that the appeal was filed out of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has satisfied the legal requirements to justify the court exercising its discretion to grant a temporary injunction pending appeal
  2. Whether there is a valid pending appeal before the court
  3. Whether the application is barred by the doctrine of res judicata
  4. Whether the Applicant has a prima facie case with probability of success
  5. Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable injury which damages cannot atone for
  6. Where the balance of convenience lies

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is issued restraining the Respondent, its agents, or servants from removing, demolishing, or interfering with the Applicant's telecommunications mast at LRV 2477 Folio 14 Plot 35, Bugolobi, until the final determination of Civil Appeal No. 0064 of 2025.
  • Civil Appeal No. 0064 of 2025 is fixed for further directions on 11th February 2026 at 9am.
  • The costs of this application shall be in the Appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunction — Injunction Pending Appeal — Distinct from Injunction Pending Suit
An application for a temporary injunction pending appeal is a distinct legal remedy from an application for an injunction pending suit, governed by different principles and aimed at preserving the integrity of the appellate process rather than maintaining the status quo for trial.
Res Judicata — Application to Injunction Proceedings — Different Causes of Action
The doctrine of res judicata does not bar an application for an injunction pending appeal following dismissal of an application for an injunction pending suit, as the two applications arise from different procedural facts and serve distinct purposes in the litigation process.
Temporary Injunction — Prima Facie Case — Appellate Jurisdiction
To establish a prima facie case for an injunction pending appeal, an applicant must demonstrate that the appeal raises serious questions of law or fact that are not frivolous or vexatious and deserve the full attention of the court, without requiring proof that they will ultimately succeed.
Telecommunications — Statutory Regulation — Infrastructure Removal — Mandatory Procedures
Under the Uganda Communications (Interconnection and Access) Regulations 2019 and related Guidelines, telecommunications infrastructure cannot be removed or relocated without 12 months' notice to access seekers and approval from the Uganda Communications Commission, and statutory obligations cannot be circumvented by private arrangements or court orders that do not expressly address those obligations.
Temporary Injunction — Irreparable Injury — Non-Pecuniary Loss
Irreparable injury for purposes of granting a temporary injunction includes potential license revocation, breach of long-term contractual obligations, and reputational damage to a service provider, all of which are non-pecuniary losses that cannot be adequately compensated by damages.
Temporary Injunction — Balance of Convenience — Public Interest
In determining the balance of convenience, where there is a conflict between a private right to realise security and the public interest in maintaining essential telecommunications infrastructure, the court must weigh the hardship to the public from service disruption against the inconvenience to a secured creditor from temporary delay in enforcement.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (19)

  • Patricia Njeri & 3 Others v National Museum of Kenya [2004] eKLR
  • Equip Agencies Limited v I&M Bank Limited (HCCS No. 9 of 2016)
  • Erinford Properties Ltd v Chesire County Council [1974] 2 All ER 448
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal [1982] KLR 417
  • American Cynamide Vs Ethican ALL ER 5045
  • Attorney General v. Eridadi Mugerwa HCB 96
  • British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v Attorney General (EACJ Reference No. 7 of 2017)
  • Giella v Cassman Brown & Company Ltd [1973] EA 358
  • Noormohamed Janmohamed v Kassamali Virji Madhani (1953) 20 EACA 8
  • Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd v Mohammed Tijani (HCCS No. 39 of 1993)
  • Serwanga & Ors v Diamond Trust Bank Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 846 of 2016)
  • James Musisi Senkaaba v Ruth Kalyesubula (HCMA No. 329 of 2001)
  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Civil Application No. 24 of 2015)
  • Twelve Sports Round Ltd v Manirola Farahat and Anor (HCMA No. 2227 of 2024)
  • Kyejusa Henry and Anor v Placid Maria Ssekamate and Others (Civil Appeal No. 662 of 2024)
  • City Council of Kampala v Donozio Musisi Sekyaya (Civil Application No. 3 of 2000)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji A.N Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Francome v Mirror Group Newspapers [1984] 1 WLR 892
  • E.L.T Kiyimba-Kaggwa vs. Haji Abdu Nasser Katende

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.

  • [2026] UGCOMMC 251

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Towerco of Africa Uganda Ltd v Goldmine Finance Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 3019 of 2025) [2026] UGCommC 24 (28 January 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.