[2009] UGHC 102

[2009] UGHC 102

The application for a temporary injunction is allowed by consent to preserve the status quo, with respondents continuing to occupy two rooms on the disputed property. The key contested issue was whether rental income should be deposited in court. The applicant's affidavit evidence supporting deposit of rent was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGHC 102
Parties
Applicant: Emmanuel Kimote Mulindwa; Respondent: Tomusange Emmanuel; Respondent: Nabisubi Norah
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No.518 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Temporary Injunction
Outcome
application allowed
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunction, Rental Income Dispute, Status Quo Orders, Deposit of Rent, Affidavit Evidence, Joint Respondents
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Temporary Injunction Rental Income Dispute Status Quo Orders Deposit of Rent Affidavit Evidence Joint Respondents

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmanuel Kimote Mulindwa

Applicant

Tomusange Emmanuel

Respondent

Nabisubi Norah

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Temporary Injunction

  1. 1 Whether a temporary injunction should be granted to preserve the status quo of the suit property pending determination of the main suit.
  2. 2 Whether rental income from the disputed property should be deposited in court monthly until final disposal of the main suit.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' opposition to depositing rent in court is supported by affidavit evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a temporary injunction is allowed by consent to preserve the status quo, with respondents continuing to occupy two rooms on the disputed property. The key contested issue was whether rental income should be deposited in court. The applicant's affidavit evidence supporting deposit of rent was uncontested by the second respondent and not substantively opposed by the first respondent, whose affidavit did not object to deposit but only to the injunction. The respondents' counsel's arguments were unsupported by affidavit evidence and were disregarded. The court found that respondents' claim of dependency on rental income was not credible, given their ability to engage...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is granted by consent, maintaining the status quo of the suit property.
  • Rental income of UGX 1,870,000 or as applicable from the suit property shall be deposited with court monthly until final determination of the main suit.