[2025] UGHCLD 105
The court found that the applicants were no longer in use of the access road that was the subject matter of the main suit, as the status quo had changed following the construction of a perimeter wall. An alternative access road was already in place. The court held that the application for suspension and a mandatory...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] UGHCLD 105
- Parties
- Applicant: Bukera Bosco; Applicant: Mugisha Henry; Applicant: Mutiibwa Innocent; Applicant: Kigundu Ahmada; Applicant: Kabeera Jenifer; Respondent: Kabenge Jackson
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Misc.Application No.O913 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Suspension of Proceedings and Mandatory Injunction Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- Alividza, J
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Status Quo Orders, Access Rights, Appeal Proceedings
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bukera Bosco
Applicant
Mugisha Henry
Applicant
Mutiibwa Innocent
Applicant
Kigundu Ahmada
Applicant
Kabeera Jenifer
Applicant
Kabenge Jackson
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Suspension of Proceedings and Mandatory Injunction Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Misc. App No. 833 of 2023 and Misc. App No. 647 of 2023 should be suspended pending appeal.
- 2 Whether a mandatory injunction should issue restoring the status quo of the access road as at the time of filing Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2023.
- 3 Whether the application is overtaken by events.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants were no longer in use of the access road that was the subject matter of the main suit, as the status quo had changed following the construction of a perimeter wall. An alternative access road was already in place. The court held that the application for suspension and a mandatory injunction had been overtaken by events and that the pending appeal would address the substantive issues. Consequently, the application was dismissed as there was no longer a live issue to be determined by the orders sought.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed as overtaken by events.
- Each party shall bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
# IN THE HIGHCOURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
### **LAND DIVISION**
#### MISC. APPLICATION NO.0913 OF 2023
## (ARISING FROM MISC. APP NO. 833 OF 2023)
#### (ARISING FROM MISC. APP NO. 648 OF 2023)
(ARISING FROM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2023)
BUKERA BOSCO::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: MUGISHA HENRY:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: MUTIIBWA INNOCENT:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: **KIGUNDU AHMADA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::** KABEERA JENIFER:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: **VERSUS**
# <table> KABENGE JACKSON:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: BEFORE HON LADY JUSTICE ELIZABETH JANE ALIVIDZA **RULING**
#### REPRESENTATION
The Applicants were represented by Counsel Wamimbi Samson. The Respondent was represented by Counsel Mudaki Ronald.
#### **INTRODUCTION**
The Applicants brought this Application under Article 126(2) C of the 25 Constitution, Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 43 Rule 4 and Order 52 Rule 1,2 and 3 of the *Civil Procedure Rules* seeking orders that;
a. Misc. App No. 833 of 2023 and Misc. App No. 647 of 2023 be suspended.
$\mathsf{S}$
- b. A mandatory Injunction Order doth issue restoring the status quo of the suit existing road to what it was at the time of filing civil Appeal No.0035 of 2023. - c. Costs of the suit be provided for. - 2( The grounds of this Application are contained in an Aflidavit in support of this Application deponed by l"t Applicant.
The Respondent in reply to this Application averred that the Chamber Summons and reliefs sought therein are bad in law. That the Applicant has no cause of action against the Respondent since the Application has been over taken by events.
Both parties filed written submissions that have been considered in determining this Application.
I note that Applicants in this case are not in use of the access road that was the subject matter of the main suit. By the time this
Application was filed, the status quo of the access road had changed. This was after the Applicant constructing the perimeter wall. There is already an alternative access road in place. 45
There is a pending Appeal that will dispose of the issues. This Application is overtaken by events.
I accordingly dismiss it. Each party bears their costs. 50
# So ordered
67(+
Elizabeth Jane Alividza 55
$\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$
$\n *inc*\n$
**Judge**
27<sup>th</sup> June 2025
27<sup>th</sup> June 2025
Judgment on ECCMIS 60
incted
Elizabeth Jane Alividza