[2019] UGHCLD 49
The court found that the wording of the previous order granting the applicant free access and quiet enjoyment of the suit kibanja amounted to a final order, which is inappropriate at the interlocutory stage. The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo, not to determine possession or rights...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] UGHCLD 49
- Parties
- Applicant: Muhammed Jjumba; Respondent: Javiira Sebiitosi
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Misc.Application No. 671 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application_allowed_in_part
- Judges
- Kawesa, J
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunction, Status Quo Preservation, Variation of Orders, Possession Dispute
- 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
Muhammed Jjumba
Applicant
Javiira Sebiitosi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the wording of the temporary injunction order amounts to a final order before determination of the main suit.
- 2 Whether the status quo of the suit property should be preserved pending final determination.
- 3 Whether both parties should be restrained from alienating, wasting, or disposing of the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the wording of the previous order granting the applicant free access and quiet enjoyment of the suit kibanja amounted to a final order, which is inappropriate at the interlocutory stage. The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo, not to determine possession or rights before the main suit is resolved. Therefore, the order was varied to require both parties to maintain the status quo of the suit property as it was at the time of the suit, restraining both from waste, alienation, disposal, or destruction of the property until final determination.
Court Disposition
application_allowed_in_part
Orders
- Both parties shall maintain the status quo of the suit property as it was at the time of the suit.
- Neither party nor their agents shall waste, alienate, dispose of, or destroy the subject matter until final determination of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**
**LAND DIVISION**
**MISC. APPLICATION NO. 671 OF 2019**
**ARISING FROM M. A NO.1398 OF 2018**
**(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO.681 OF 2018)**
**MUHAMMED JJUMBA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT**
**VERSES**
**JAVIIRA SEBIITOSI :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT**
**BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE HENRY I. KAWESA**
**RULING**
Under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, this Court has inherent powers to ensure that justice is done. O.41 r4 of the Civil Procedure Rules empowers this Court to vary a temporary injunction order.
I have looked at the application and the submissions therein. The wording of the order amounts to a final order when it states that;
*‘the Applicant freely access and quietly enjoy possession of the suit kibanja……..’*
The suit kibanja is in dispute and both parties claim they are in possession. Without a determination of the final suit, such an order is deemed to amount to a final order.
This Court is aware that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the *status quo* as it is before the suit is finally determined. If it is a kibanja, then whoever is on it with whatever is utlised thereon as at the time of the suit is what is preserved from alienation or waste.
I will therefore vary the order by ordering that both parties *‘maintain the* *status quo of the suit property as it was’* at the time of the suit.
There should be no waste, alienation, disposal or destruction of the subject matter both by the Applicant or the Respondent or their agents until the final determination of this suit.
The application is allowed only in the terms as above.
Each party to bear its own costs of this application.
I so order.
……………………
Henry I. Kawesa
**JUDGE**
29/08/2019
29/08/2019:
Kangaho for the Respondent.
Respondent present.
Applicant absent.
Court:
Ruling delivered to the parties above.
……………………
Henry I. Kawesa
**JUDGE**
29/08/2019