Wakilii

Ugantico Supermarket Limited v Registrar of Titles and 2 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 506 93)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 149 · 1994 Application Granted — Injunction Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for temporary injunction under Order 37 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, in relation to an ongoing civil suit concerning cancellation of land title
Decision
Temporary injunction granted restraining respondents from interfering with suit land pending determination of main suit

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

Held that the applicant established a prima facie case raising serious questions of law and fact concerning the Registrar's power to cancel titles on grounds of fraud, which power is vested in the High Court under s.185 of the Registration of Titles Act. The court found that preservation of alleged developments on the suit land was crucial evidence for the main suit. The applicant would suffer irreparable injury if construction by respondents proceeded, as residential buildings might not suit the applicant's intended commercial use and damages would not be adequate compensation. Balance of convenience favoured the applicant who had already carried out developments. Temporary injunction granted.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted restraining respondents from interfering with suit land pending determination of main suit

Facts

The applicant company, Ugantico Supermarket Limited, held a 49-year lease over land in Kampala registered as LRV 1182 folio 6. The Registrar of Titles cancelled this certificate on 9 March 1993 on grounds that the extension to full term had been obtained fraudulently without sufficient development as required by the lease covenant. Following cancellation, Kampala City Council allocated the land to the second and third respondents and issued them certificates of title on 7 July 1993 and 1 July 1993. The applicant filed suit challenging the cancellation and sought an order for lodgement of caveats, which was granted on 17 June 1993. However, the caveats and court order were received late at the Land Registry on 4 August 1993, by which time titles had already been issued to respondents. The applicant alleged that respondents entered the land in July 1993 and commenced destroying developments. The applicant applied for a temporary injunction to restrain further interference pending determination of the main suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case with probability of success in the main suit challenging the cancellation of its certificate of title.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury not adequately compensable in damages if the injunction were refused.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the temporary injunction to maintain the status quo.

Orders

  • Application for temporary injunction granted.
  • Respondents, their servants or agents restrained from interfering with the suit land.
  • Respondents restrained from destroying the plaintiff/applicant's developments on the suit land.
  • Respondents restrained from carrying out any construction or other activity on the land until final disposal of the main suit or until further orders from the court.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Temporary Injunctions — Prima Facie Case — Standard of Proof
An applicant for a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success in the main suit. Where the main suit raises serious questions of law, including whether the Registrar of Titles exceeded jurisdiction by cancelling a certificate of title on grounds of fraud, the applicant satisfies this condition.
Registration of Titles — Cancellation for Fraud — Jurisdiction
The power to cancel a certificate of title on grounds of fraud is vested in the High Court under section 185 of the Registration of Titles Act and not in the Registrar of Titles acting alone. A cancellation effected by the Registrar on such grounds may be challenged as exceeding jurisdiction.
Preservation of Evidence — Developments on Land — Status Quo
Where the existence of developments on land is a material issue in dispute in the main suit and fraud is alleged requiring a higher standard of proof, the court should preserve the status quo by injunction to prevent destruction of evidence which would be crucial to determining the case.
Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable Injury — Adequacy of Damages
Irreparable injury means substantial injury which cannot be adequately atoned for in damages. Where respondents construct residential buildings on land intended by the applicant for commercial use as a supermarket, and such buildings would have to be demolished if the applicant succeeds or the applicant would be stuck with unsuitable structures, damages are not an adequate remedy.
Temporary Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Preservation of Status Quo
On the balance of convenience, it is more just and reasonable to halt all activities by both parties pending determination of the main suit rather than allow one party to continue construction which may have to be demolished if that party is found to be in the wrong. An applicant who has already carried out developments is more inconvenienced by their destruction than a respondent who has merely brought materials to site but not yet built.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (10)

  • Giella v Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358
  • Larridas v Shell and BP (U) Ltd (1971) HCB 222
  • Alphonse Odido v Lebel & Others (1987) HCB 77
  • Kampala Bottlers v Damanico (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Matovu v Seviri & Another (1979) HCB
  • Hajati Ziribagwa & Supr v Yakobo Ntale Mayanja (Civil Suit No. 117 of 1991)
  • Elisa Rainbow Musoke vs. Ahamad Kezaala & others
  • Baitwa v Nakanwagi (1971) HCB 125
  • JB Mubiru v Uganda Land Commission (HCCS No. 735 of 1990)
  • Buikwe Estate Coffee Works Ltd & 2 Others v Lutabi (Civil Case No. 700 of 1970)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ugantico Supermarket Limited v Registrar of Titles and 2 Others (CIVIL SUIT NO. 506_93) [1994] UGHC 149 (2 May 1994)
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.