Twed Property Development Limited v Uganda Investment Authority and 2 Others [2020] UGHCCD 231
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 an interim injunction prohibiting the respondents from carrying out developments on disputed land pending determination of the main application for temporary injunction and judicial review. The court held that the applicant established serious triable issues concerning the grant and non-renewal of a lease and breach of legitimate expectation. The status quo to be preserved was that the land should not be dealt with in any way before the court determines the validity of the non-renewal and subsequent allocation to other parties.
Outcome
Interim injunction granted prohibiting developments on disputed land pending determination of substantive application and judicial review proceedings
Facts
The applicant was allocated 5 acres of land in Namanve Industrial Park by the 1st respondent in September 2011 for construction of residential, office developments and a 4-star hotel. The applicant spent over 15 months settling squatters, completed survey in October 2013, and obtained permission to fence the land. In April 2014, the applicant applied to change the user to a modern warehouse and logistics centre. The 1st respondent subsequently refused to renew the applicant's lease and allocated the land to the 2nd and 3rd respondents in 2020. The 2nd respondent was allocated 3 acres on a 5-year lease starting July 2020 and had commenced developments including survey, fencing, and construction of a perimeter wall. The applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the revocation and reallocation, and applied for interim injunction to preserve the status quo.
Issues
- Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case with probability of success warranting the grant of an interim injunction.
- Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of an interim injunction.
- Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the interim injunction is not granted.
- What is the status quo to be preserved pending determination of the substantive application.
Orders
- Application allowed.
- An interim order issues prohibiting the respondents from carrying on any developments on the land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 113 Plot 572 (Plot 1639 & 1638 Block 113) till the disposal of the main application for temporary injunction and the main cause for judicial review.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
- Civil Procedure Act s.64(c)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
Cases cited (4)
- Anifa Bangirana v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 46 of 2010)
- American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] ALL ER 504
- Victor Construction Works Ltd v Uganda National Roads Authority (HCMA No. 601 of 2010)
- Humphrey Nzeyi v Bank of Uganda and Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 01 of 2013)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.