[2018] UGSC 29

[2018] UGSC 29

The Supreme Court found that the applicant had lodged a competent Notice of Appeal and a substantive application for a temporary injunction was pending. The court determined that, following the Court of Appeal's decision in favor of the respondent and the cancellation of the applicant's caveat, there existed a real and imminent threat that the respondent could alienate or dispose of the suit property as his personal property. Such alienation would render the main application and the appeal nugatory, depriving the applicant of any subject matter to litigate. The court exercised its inherent powers under Rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules to preserve the status quo, holding...

Citation
[2018] UGSC 29
Parties
Applicant: Patrick Kaumba Wiltshire; Respondent: Ismail Dabule
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
27 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Ruling on Interim Order
Outcome
interim order granted
Judges
Buteera, JSC
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Status Quo Preservation, Estate Administration, Caveat Removal, Property Alienation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interim Injunction Status Quo Preservation Estate Administration Caveat Removal Property Alienation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Kaumba Wiltshire

Applicant

Ismail Dabule

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Ruling on Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim order restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing of the suit property pending determination of the substantive application for a temporary injunction.
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious threat of execution or alienation of the suit property that would render the main application and appeal nugatory.
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its inherent powers under Rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules to preserve the status quo.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the applicant had lodged a competent Notice of Appeal and a substantive application for a temporary injunction was pending. The court determined that, following the Court of Appeal's decision in favor of the respondent and the cancellation of the applicant's caveat, there existed a real and imminent threat that the respondent could alienate or dispose of the suit property as his personal property. Such alienation would render the main application and the appeal nugatory, depriving the applicant of any subject matter to litigate. The court exercised its inherent powers under Rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules to preserve the status quo, holding...

Court Disposition

interim order granted

Orders

  • An interim order is granted restraining the respondent, his agents, servants, or anyone claiming under him or under the judgment in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 130 of 2015 from alienating or in any way disposing of the property known as LRV 194 Folio 13 at plot 21 Kampala Road pending the hearing and disposal...
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the substantive application.