[2023] UGHCLD 18

[2023] UGHCLD 18

The court found that the order sought by the applicant would alter, rather than preserve, the status quo on the suit land by permitting new construction and foundations. Such a variation would defeat the purpose of the restraining order issued under Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which is intended to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] UGHCLD 18
Parties
Applicant: Grace Akello Ayebare; Respondent: Ritah Namanda Kaboyo; Respondent: Tungakwo Bernard; Respondent: Owembabazi Enid
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 1780 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Basaza, J
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Status Quo Preservation, Restraining Orders, Variation of Orders, Construction on Land
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Temporary Injunctions Status Quo Preservation Restraining Orders Variation of Orders Construction on Land

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Akello Ayebare

Applicant

Ritah Namanda Kaboyo

Respondent

Tungakwo Bernard

Respondent

Owembabazi Enid

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

  1. 1 Whether sufficient cause has been shown to grant the order varying the interim restraining order to permit construction of a retaining wall.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order sought by the applicant would alter, rather than preserve, the status quo on the suit land by permitting new construction and foundations. Such a variation would defeat the purpose of the restraining order issued under Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which is intended to maintain the current state of affairs and prevent actions that could prejudice the outcome of the main suit. The applicant failed to show sufficient cause for the variation, and the application was therefore misconceived and without merit. The court emphasized that the main suit would be fast-tracked to address the parties' concerns expeditiously.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • This application is dismissed.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.