Wakilii

Vivo Energy Uganda Limited and 2 Others v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (Civil Application No. 313 of 2021)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 53 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for an interim order of injunction pending hearing of an application for a temporary injunction and a civil appeal in the Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for interim order dismissed with costs; threatened decommissioning may be raised in fresh High Court proceedings

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 Court of Appeal dismissed an application for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondent from decommissioning the applicants' fuel storage and hydrant facility. The court held that the High Court had dismissed the applicants' judicial review application as time barred, so the appeal could only consider the limitation question; the court could not go into the merits. The orders sought did not naturally arise from the appeal, which challenged the award of a contract to a non-party (TriStar). The applicants had no legal or equitable interest in the hydrant facility, their lease having expired and being subject to renewal before the Uganda Land Commission. The threatened decommissioning could form the subject of fresh High Court proceedings.

Outcome

Application for interim order dismissed with costs; threatened decommissioning may be raised in fresh High Court proceedings

Facts

The applicants, oil companies operating an aviation fuel storage and hydrant facility at Entebbe International Airport since 1976 through an unincorporated joint association, sought an interim order to restrain the Uganda Civil Aviation Authority from decommissioning their facility pending determination of an application for a temporary injunction and Civil Appeal No 13 of 2021. The respondent had awarded an exclusive contract to TriStar Transport LLC to build and operate a new fuel storage and hydrant facility under a civil aviation master plan citing safety and security concerns. The applicants had filed High Court Miscellaneous Cause No 88 of 2020 for judicial review challenging the award, but the High Court dismissed it as time barred and for failure to exhaust PPDA remedies. The applicants' lease on the suit property had expired and renewal was pending before the Uganda Land Commission. The respondent intended to decommission the facility by 2022.

Issues

  1. Whether the interim order of injunction sought naturally arises out of the pending appeal lodged in Civil Appeal No 13 of 2021.
  2. Whether the court may grant an interim order based on the merits of a judicial review application that was dismissed by the High Court as time barred.
  3. Whether the applicants had a legal or equitable interest in the hydrant facility sufficient to support the interim order sought.

Orders

  • The application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Injunctions — Interim Order Pending Appeal — Order Must Arise From the Pending Appeal
An interim order of injunction sought pending appeal must arise from the decision under appeal; where the orders sought do not naturally arise out of the notice of appeal, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant them.
Limitation — Time-Barred Application — Merits Cannot Be Reopened by Interim Order
Where a judicial review application has been dismissed as time barred, the appellate court considering an interim order is restricted to the limitation question and cannot enter into the merits of the dismissed application by way of an interim order.
Injunctions — No Order Against a Non-Party — Right to Fair Hearing
No injunctive order can be made affecting a party who is not before the court, as doing so would violate that party's right to a fair hearing under articles 28(1) and 44(c) of the Constitution.
Leasehold — Expired Lease — No Legal or Equitable Interest to Protect by Injunction
An applicant whose lease has expired and whose renewal is pending before a separate authority has no legal or equitable interest in the property sufficient to ground an injunction; the renewal proceedings can proceed without court interference.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (5)

  • Nairobi City Council versus Restey [2002] 2 EA 493
  • Crane Bank Ltd (in liquidation) v Sudhir Ruparelia and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2021)
  • Wilson v Church (1879) 12 Ch D 454
  • Hon. Theodore Ssekikubo and 4 Others v Attorney General and 4 Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Nsubuga Guster and Another (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Vivo Energy Uganda Limited and 2 Others v Uganda Civil Aviation Authority (Civil Application No. 313 of 2021) [2022] UGCA 53 (22 February 2022)
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.