[2018] UGSC 52

[2018] UGSC 52

The Supreme Court found that the applicant had lodged a competent Notice of Appeal and that a substantive application for a temporary injunction was pending. The applicant demonstrated a credible threat that the respondent could alienate or dispose of the suit property before the substantive application was determined, particularly in light of the Land Board's letter indicating it would not act until court proceedings concluded. The court held that alienation of the property would render the main application and appeal nugatory, defeating the ends of justice. Applying the principles from relevant case law and Rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules, the court exercised its...

Citation
[2018] UGSC 52
Parties
Applicant: Patrick Kaumba Wiltshire; Respondent: Ismail Dabule
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
27 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Interim Injunction Application Before Supreme Court (single Justice)
Outcome
interim order granted
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

Miscellaneous Application / Interim Injunction Application Before Supreme Court (single Justice)

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 before the substantive application is heard.
  3. 3 Whether the status quo should be preserved to prevent the main application and appeal from being rendered nugatory.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the applicant had lodged a competent Notice of Appeal and that a substantive application for a temporary injunction was pending. The applicant demonstrated a credible threat that the respondent could alienate or dispose of the suit property before the substantive application was determined, particularly in light of the Land Board's letter indicating it would not act until court proceedings concluded. The court held that alienation of the property would render the main application and appeal nugatory, defeating the ends of justice. Applying the principles from relevant case law and Rule 2(2) of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules, the court exercised its...

Court Disposition

interim order granted

Orders

  • An interim order is issued 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 of...
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the substantive application.