Wakilii

Twinomujuni George and Another v Lule Abraham Balemezi and Another [2025] UGHC 413

High Court · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a temporary injunction order granted in an interlocutory application arising from a civil suit
Decision
Temporary injunction set aside and matter remitted to Assistant Registrar for fresh ruling after locus visit

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 held that third parties claiming interest in land affected by a temporary injunction have locus standi to seek review under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act. Where the court failed to conduct a mandatory locus visit under Order XIA rule 3(2) before issuing a temporary injunction in a land matter, this constitutes any other sufficient reason warranting review. The injunction order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh ruling after a locus visit.

Outcome

Temporary injunction set aside and matter remitted to Assistant Registrar for fresh ruling after locus visit

Facts

The Applicants purchased portions of land (50 by 150 feet and 40 by 160 feet) from Mutesasira Harman on 8 and 13 February 2024, taking immediate possession and commencing construction. The Respondents filed Civil Suit No. 189 of 2024 against Mutesasira Asuman and Mayosana Priscilla claiming interest in the suit land, then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 514 of 2024 for a temporary injunction. The injunction was granted without a locus visit, restraining activities on the land including the Applicants' construction. The Applicants were not made parties to either proceeding. The Applicants brought materials which were wasting due to rain and theft while restrained from continuing construction.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants have locus standi to apply for review of the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No.514 of 2024.
  2. Whether the application discloses sufficient grounds to warrant a review.
  3. Whether there are any remedies available.

Orders

  • The temporary injunction order issued in Miscellaneous Application No. 514 of 2024 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The Assistant Registrar is directed to visit the locus in quo to establish land possessed by the parties to Miscellaneous Application No. 514 of 2024.
  • The Assistant Registrar shall thereafter deliver a fresh ruling in respect of Miscellaneous Application No. 514 of 2024 taking into account the facts at the locus in quo.
  • In the meantime, the parties shall maintain the status quo until the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 514 of 2024 is delivered.
  • Each party to this application shall bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Review — Locus Standi — Third Parties Affected by Court Order
A third party claiming an interest in land affected by a temporary injunction order has locus standi to apply for review of that order under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act if they establish they are aggrieved persons, even though they were not parties to the original application.
Procedure — Locus in Quo Visits — Mandatory Requirement in Land Matters
Under Order XIA rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, a visit to the locus in quo by the registrar before hearing the case is mandatory in all matters relating to land. The use of the word shall makes this requirement imperative, not discretionary.
Review — Grounds — Any Other Sufficient Reason
The ground any other sufficient reason under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act must be at least analogous to either the discovery of new and important evidence or a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Failure to conduct a mandatory locus visit in a land matter constitutes such sufficient reason where the visit would have revealed facts affecting the propriety of the order.
Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
An error apparent on the face of the record cannot be determined through a long drawn process of reasoning. It must be a clear error on a substantial point of law that stares one in the face and on which there could reasonably be no two opinions. A mere wrong view where another view was possible is not an error apparent on the face of the record, though it may be grounds for appeal.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

  • Ladak Abdulla v Griffiths Isingoma Kakiza and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)
  • Muhamed Allibhai v W.E Bukenya Mukasa and Another (SCCA No. 56 of 1996)
  • Kabagambe Grace v Mbabazi Resty and Another (HCMA No. 002 of 2022)
  • Yaseri Waibi Vs. Lusi Byandala (1982) HCB 28
  • Cotu(k) Vs Nzioka & others [1990-1994] 1E.A 64
  • Farm Input Care Ltd Centre Ltd v Klein Karoo Seed Marketing (PTY) Ltd (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 902 of 2018)
  • Ojijo Pascal v Iseza Catherine Bwakika (HCMA No. 1028 of 2020)
  • Buladina Nankya vs. Bulasio Konde (1979) HCB 239
  • Re- Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd (1979) HCB U

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Twinomujuni George and Another v Lule Abraham Balemezi and Another 2025 UGHC 413 (11 June 2025)
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.