[2012] UGHC 126
The court found that the status quo had already been disturbed by the respondent obtaining a land title for the disputed land. Since the applicant's injury could be adequately compensated by monetary damages, the requirements for granting a temporary injunction were not met. The application for a temporary...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] UGHC 126
- Parties
- Applicant: Emenyat Joseph; Respondent: Malera Sub County Local Government
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Hct-09-cv- Cr. No. 0013/2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- Musota, J
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunction, Irreparable Injury, Land Title Dispute, Compensation for Land
- 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
Emenyat Joseph
Applicant
Malera Sub County Local Government
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his quiet possession of the disputed land.
- 2 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the status quo had already been disturbed by the respondent obtaining a land title for the disputed land. Since the applicant's injury could be adequately compensated by monetary damages, the requirements for granting a temporary injunction were not met. The application for a temporary injunction was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for a temporary injunction is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA**
**AT SOROTI**
**HCT-09-CV- CR. NO. 0013/2011**
**EMENYAT JOSEPH......................................................................... APPLICANT**
**VERSUS**
**MALERA SUB COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT............................................................................ RESPONDENT**
**RULING**
**BEFORE: HON JUSTICE MUSOTA STEPHEN.**
This application is by way of chamber summons brought under 0 4 rr 1, 2, 3 and 9 Civil Procedure Rules and S.98 of the Civil Procedure Act for orders that a temporary injunction does issue restraining Malera Sub County Local Government its agent/servant from interfering with the quiet possession until further orders are made by court.
The chamber summons is supported by the affidavit of an unknown person who described himself as a male Ugandan of sound mind and the applicant.
In Paragraph 4 of the affidavit, it is deponed that:-
I have been informed by lawyers which information I verily
Believed to be true that I was to be compensated for my
Land which the respondent forcefully annexed into their
land Title.
That the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable damage which cannot be compensated by damages if this application is not granted.
When I perused the plaint in the main civil suit one of the prayers is for an order that the defendants (respondent) certificate of Title for the adjoining piece of land comprised in FRV 814 Folio 5 known as Plot 154,155, Block 5 at Kabarwa belonging to the defendant (respondent) be re surveyed and/or re demarcated so as to exclude the portion of the plaintiff’s land.
The main objective of granting a temporary injunction is to maintain the status quo until settlement of the whole dispute so as to protect the applicant from suffering irreparable injury. Irreparable injury means injury which is substantial and could not be adequately remedied or atoned for by damages. From what I have found out from the record; the land in dispute is already surveyed and is in the names of respondent. It is delineated as FRV & 14 Folio 5 Plots 154, 155 block 5 at Kabarwa. It appears the process of registration has been completed and what the applicant is seeking in the main suit is inter alia compensation for the land allegedly included in the same title but belongs to him.
In the circumstance therefore, a temporary injunction is not available to the applicant as the status quo had already been disturbed through the respondent getting a land title for the disputed land. The applicant injury is likely to be adequately compensated for in monetary terms.
Consequently, this application will be dismissed with no order as to costs.
Musota Stephen,
JUDGE
9.7.2012