Were & 3 Others v Were (Miscellaneous Application 249 of 2024)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

On an application for a temporary injunction pending appeal, the single justice overruled the respondent's preliminary objection, holding that under Rule 42(2) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules the Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court and an application under Rule 6(2)(b) need not first be made to the High Court. Applying the principles in Shiv Construction v Endesha Enterprises, the Court found the applicants had shown a prima facie appeal with a likelihood of success and that they would suffer irreparable damage, the appeal being rendered nugatory if the respondent continued to administer and distribute the disputed estate. The injunction was granted to maintain the status quo of the estate until disposal of the appeal.

Outcome

Temporary injunction granted to maintain the status quo of the estate pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 0309 of 2024

Facts

Upon the death of the late Were Patrick Wedakule, the respondent was granted letters of administration as his surviving spouse, a marital status disputed by the applicants, who also contended that other beneficiaries were omitted from the petition for the grant. The applicants brought Civil Suit No. 006 of 2022 as beneficiaries, seeking a declaration that the respondent was not married to the deceased, revocation of the grant for fraud, damages, interest and costs. They relied on a letter from the Uganda Registration Services Bureau stating that the marriage certificate attached to the petition was a forgery. The trial judge nonetheless found it more probable than not that the respondent was married to the deceased, held the grant lawfully obtained, and dismissed the suit with costs. The applicants appealed (Civil Appeal No. 0309 of 2024) and applied for an injunction, asserting the respondent had begun acting as administrator, evicting a former manager, demanding certificates of title and threatening to evict their mother.

Issues

1. Whether the application is incompetent for being improperly before the Court of Appeal because it ought first to have been made to the High Court.
2. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction pending the determination of their appeal.

Orders

• Preliminary objection overruled.
• An injunction is issued to maintain the status quo of the estate of the late Were Patrick as at the time of filing Civil Suit No. 006 of 2022 and restraining the Respondent or her servants/agents from transacting in the estate as an administrator until the disposal of Civil Appeal No. 0309 of 2024.
• The costs of this application shall abide by the outcome of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 art.128
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.6(2)(b)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.41(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.42(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.43

Cases cited (4)

• Shiv Construction v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
• Lawrence Musitwa v Eunice Busingye (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1990)
• Gusii Mwalimu Investment Co Ltd & Anor v Mwalimu Hotel Kisii Ltd (1995-1998) 2 EA 100
• Giella v Cassman Brown & Co [1973] EA 358

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Tuwei Muhammad Kiprugu and Others v Eastern Uganda Agriculture Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2025)

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