Twed Property Development Limited v Uganda Investment Authority and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2021)
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 allowed the appeal, setting aside the Deputy Registrar's refusal to grant a temporary injunction. Where the 2nd and 3rd respondents holding titles to contested land did not contest the appeal and the 3rd respondent conceded, uncontested evidence is taken as truth. The court applied the principle from Gandesha and Prof. Oloka Onyango that uncontested evidence should be accepted. A temporary injunction was granted restraining dispossession and further title issuance pending determination of the main suit, with costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.
Outcome
Temporary injunction granted restraining 2nd and 3rd respondents from dispossessing appellant and restraining 1st respondent from issuing full term leases pending disposal of main suit
Facts
The appellant held a lease over land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 113 Plot 572, subsequently subdivided into Plots 1638 and 1639. The lease expired and the 1st respondent (Uganda Investment Authority) declined to renew it. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were issued with titles to the suit land. The appellant filed the main suit claiming equitable interest in the land, alleging it was in possession and that the respondents' actions involved fraud and misrepresentation. The appellant sought recovery of land, cancellation of titles, and damages. The appellant applied for a temporary injunction to restrain dispossession and further title issuance. The Deputy Registrar declined the application. The appellant appealed. The 2nd and 3rd respondents did not contest the appeal; the 3rd respondent conceded. The 1st respondent opposed on grounds the appellant had no legal interest after lease expiry.
Issues
- Whether the Deputy Registrar's order declining to grant the temporary injunction was contrary to the facts and law governing temporary injunctions.
Orders
- Appeal allowed.
- Ruling of the Deputy Registrar vide Miscellaneous Application No. 1378 of 2021 set aside.
- Miscellaneous Application No. 1378 of 2021 granted until determination of the main suit.
- Costs of the application and appeal to abide the outcome of the main suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (3)
- Kiyimba Kaggwa v A.N Katende [1985] H.C.B 43
- H.B Gandesha and Another v G.J Lutaaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 74 of 1989)
- Prof. Oloka Onyango and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2014)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.