[2008] UGCA 5

[2008] UGCA 5

The Court of Appeal found that the applicants had established a prima facie case, as the High Court erred in dismissing their originating summons without a hearing on the merits. The applicants' right to a fair hearing under Article 28 and just administrative treatment under Article 42 of the Constitution was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] UGCA 5
Parties
Applicant: Grace Bamurangye Bororoza & 53 Others; Respondent: Dr. K. Asirivu Atwoki & 5 Others
Court
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Application No.44 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Judicial Review, Right to Fair Hearing, Eviction Disputes, Administrative Decisions, Status Quo Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Temporary Injunctions Judicial Review Right to Fair Hearing Eviction Disputes Administrative Decisions +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Bamurangye Bororoza & 53 Others

Applicant

Dr. K. Asirivu Atwoki & 5 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case with a probability of success on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants will suffer irreparable damage if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors granting the temporary injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the applicants had established a prima facie case, as the High Court erred in dismissing their originating summons without a hearing on the merits. The applicants' right to a fair hearing under Article 28 and just administrative treatment under Article 42 of the Constitution was violated by both the presidential committee and the High Court. The Court held that the committee acted as a quasi-judicial body and was required to act judicially, which it failed to do. The applicants demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable harm if evicted without due process, as they had no alternative land and risked becoming destitute. The balance of convenience favored...

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is granted restraining the respondents or their agents from evicting the applicants from their land in Buliisa until the determination of the appeal.
  • Costs of this application to abide the results of the appeal.