[2021] UGCA 219

## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.248 OF 2021

(Arising from Civil Application No.230 of 2021)

(Arising from Civil Appeal No.089 of 2021)

(All arising out of Mpigi High Court Civil Suit No. 008 of 2018)

LUGGYA ANDREW::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

#### **VERSUS**

1. KIKONYOGO RICHARD

2. SSEMBATYA JOSEPH::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

CORAM: HON. MR. JUSTICE CHEBORION BARISHAKI, JA 15

## (SINGLE JUSTICE)

## **RULING**

$\mathsf{S}$

$\mathcal{V}^{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathcal{A}_1}$

This application was brought under the provisions of sections 10 and 12 of the Judicature Act Cap 13 and Rules 2(2), 6 (2) (b), 43 (1) and (2) of the Rules of this Court.

It seeks for orders that:-

a. An interim order doth issue to restrain the respondents, their agents. servants, workers and any other person acting on their behalf or any other

1 | Page

- ⁵ person interfeing with selling, muktting, transfering, euicting or angbodg deriuing interest from them from disposing off or receiuing ang payment in respect of land comprised in Mauokota Block 92 plots 190, 193 & 242 (754,755,756,757,758,759.76O,761 all out of plot 242) pendincl the ' determination and frnal disposal of Ciuil Application No.23O of 2021 arising - 10

o

o

from the High Court of Mpigi Ciuil / Land Suit No. O8 of 2O18, Lugya Andre u.t Versus Sembatga Joseph and Kikongogo RicLnrd.

- b. An inteim order of stag of proceedings of orders of the High Court of Mpigi Ciuil/ Land Suit No.08 of 2O18 Lugga Andreut V Sembatya Joseph and Kikonyogo Richard until the heaing and final determination and final disposal of Ciuil Application No.230 of 2O2 1 aising from Ciuil Appeal No. O89 9f,?,q21 aising from the High Court of Mpigi Ciuil/ Land Suit No.08 of 2O18 Lugya Andrew V Sembatga Joseph and Kikonyogo Richard. - c. Costs of this application be prouided for.

The background to the application as accepted by the learned trial Judge is that the applicant claimed to be a nephew and a beneficiary of the estate of the late Tereza Nal,ugrya who was the registered , proprietor of land comprised in Mawokota Block 92 Plots 19O, 193 and 242 (hercinafter referred to as the suit land). The applicant sued the respondents seeking inter alia for a declaration that the suit land formed part of the estate of the late Tereza Naluggya, a declaration that the defendants fraudulently obtained the certificate of title arrd registration on the suit land and an order for cancellation of the name of the 2nd respondent on the title of the surt land. 20 25

2l

⁵ on the 10th of August, 2o2o, Hon. Lady Justice cornelia K. Sabiti delivere'l judgment in civil Suit No.o8 of 2O 18 in which she inter alia held that thc applicant had failed to prove fraud against the defendants and dismissed the suit. The applicant then filed Miscellaneous cause No.05 of 2O2O against the respondents seei.ing for stay of execution of the decree and/ or judgment in Mpigi High court civil Suit No.o8 of 2018 but the same was dismissed with costs. 10

The applicant then Iiled an appeal vide Civil Appeal No.089 of 2021, Luggya Andrew V Sembatya Joseph and Kikonyogo Richard. It was the applicant's case that while the appeal is pending, the respondents have started visiting the suit la]-ld with an intention of surveying, opening bor.tndaries and taking possession of the same. Hence this application. : ' .

The grounds of the application are contained in the Notice of Motion and afirdavit in support of the application sworn by Luggra Andrew, the applicant dated 15th September, 2021. BriefTy, the grounds are that;

1. The appticant instituted Mpigi High court ciuil suit No.o8 of 2o18 seeking for declarations/ ord.ers that the respondents/ defendants fraudulentlg obtained the certificate of title and registration on the land compising in Ma.utokota Block 92 Ptots 19O, 193 & 242, an order compelling them to deliuer into court the certificates of title for the aboue described land, ^a declaratiort that the said land forms part of the estate of the Late Tereza Nalugga to rt2htch the appticant is a beneficiary and an order of permanent

o

o

3lPdge

- injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents and workmen from interrupting/ interfering with the suit land, general damages, interest thereon and costs of the suit. - 2. That in Miscellaneous Application No.796 of 2014, the applicant successfully applied for and was granted a temporary injunction pending the determination and final disposal of the main suit. - 3. That on 10th August 2020, Hon. Lady Justice Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti dismissed Civil Suit No.08 of 2018 with costs. - 4. That the applicant filed Miscellaneous Cause No.05 of 2020 against the respondents seeking for stay of execution of the decree and/or judgment in Mpigi High Court Civil Suit No.08 of 2018 but the same was dismissed with costs. $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L} \mathcal{L}$ - 5. That the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal and a Memorandum of Appeal in Civil Appeal No.089 of 2021, Luggya Andrew V Sembatya Joseph and Kikonyogo Richard. - 6. That the applicant filed Civil Application No.230 of 2021 which is pending hearing before this Honorable Court seeking for an order of injunction to $ch$ _Mor restrain the respondents, their agents, servants, workers and any other person acting on their behalf or any other person interfering with, selling, mutating, transferring, evicting or anybody deriving interest from them from disposing off or receiving any payment in respect of land comprised in 242 $190,$ 193 $\&$ plots Mawokota 92 Block (754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761 all out of plot 242) pending the

$\mathsf{S}$

$4$ | Page

- determination and final disposal of Civil Appeal No.089 of 2021 arising from the High Court of Mpigi Civil Suit No.08 of 2018, Lugya Andrew V Sembatya Joseph and Kikonyogo Richard. - 7. That in Civil Application No.230 of 2021, the applicant further seeks for an order of stay of proceedings of orders of the High Court of Mpigi Civil Suit No.08 of 2018, Lugya Andrew V Sembatya Joseph and Kikonyogo Richard until the hearing and final determination and final disposal of Civil Appeal No.089 of 2021. - 8. That the respondents have gone on to cause sub-division of the land in dispute into several plots and they are threatening to evict the applicant and those deriving interest from him and from the late Tereza Nalugya. - 9. The respondents have sub-divided the disputed land into the following plots; Mawokota Block 92 plots 190, 193 & 242 (754, 755, 756, 757, 758,759,760,761 all out of plot 242). - The applicant has been advised by his lawyers $M/S$ Semuyaba, Iga 10. & Co. Advocates and M/S Baale, Lubega & Co. Advocates, which advice he verily believes to be true that Civil Application No.230 of 2021, Luggya Andrew V Sembatya Joseph and Kikonyogo Richard as brought by the applicant is neither frivolous nor vexatious and that the grounds raised therein have a high probability of success. - 25

$\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{E}_{\mathcal{E}}\cup\{\frac{1}{2}\}}$

Should the orders sought not be granted, the applicant will suffer 11. irreparable damage that cannot be atoned for in monetary terms since the estate stands to be dissipated in respect of land forming part of the estate

5 | Page

a di Port

$\mathcal{X}_\lambda$

$\overline{\mathcal{L}}$

$\mathsf{S}$

- of the late Tereza Nalugya that cannot be replaced in the event the respondents alienate the same. - The balance of convenience in the circumstances yields in favour of 12. *the applicant who is the beneficiary of the estate of the late Tereza Nalugya,* he still holds a duty to protect the property of the estate of the subject matter *if this dispute. The applicant is in possession of part of the disputed land.* - Civil Application No.230 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No.89 of 2021 will 13. therefore be rendered nugatory unless this Honorable Court orders for an interim order of injunction against the respondents as prayed pending the *hearing and final disposal of the substantive Civil Application.* - Civil Application No.230 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No.89 of 2021 shall $14.$ also be rendered nugatory unless this Honorable Court orders for an interim Order of stay of proceedings of High Court of Mpigi vide Civil Suit No.08 of 2018 is issued against the respondents as prayed pending the hearing and final disposal of the substantive Civil Application No.230 of 2021. - That it is not only just and equitable, but also immensely in the 15. interest of justice that an order of interim order of injunction doth issue to restrain the respondents, their agents, servants, workers and any other person acting on their behalf or any other person interfering with, selling, mutating, transferring, evicting or anybody deriving interest from them from disposing off or receiving any payment in respect of land comprised in Mawokota Block 92 plots 190,193 & 242 (754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761 all out of plot 242) pending the determination and final disposal of

6 | Page

$\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{M} \Omega}$

$\mathsf{S}$

- ⁵ Ciuil Application No.230 of 2O21 aising from Ciuil Appeal No'O89 of 2O21 arising from the High Court of Mpigi Ciuil Suit No'O8 of 2018' Lugya Andreut ^VSembatgo Joseph and Kikongogo Richard' - 16. That this application has been mocle without unreasonable delag in tlwtCiuitAppticationNo.23oof2o2luasfiledtuiththisHonorableCourton 3rd. September, 2021 antl Ciuit Appeal No'O89 of 2O21 uas filed on 29th March, 2O2 7.

The application was opposed by the respondent who filed an affidavit in reply deponed by Kikonyogo Richard, dated 18th October' 2021 briefly stating that;

- i. t lpon. dismissal oJ'Misc. Application No'OOS of 2O2O by FIon' Justice Phillip - Od.oki, the applicant in abust: of Courl process filed get another similor applicationNo. Ollof202lfledonthe2TthAptil'2021'tuhichi'snotget fi xed. - ii. The appticont had sold the respondent's properLy Ltt u one Nanfumbc: Mustafa uthtt hcts since lodged cuueats on Lhe suit ptope'lA' - Nanfitmba Wlustgfa in bitl. to assert his claims made.a complaint to the Resident Dstrict commissioner (RDC) who sloppetl the respondents from 20 tlt accessing their land. - TU. As a result of the Resident Dstrict commissioner's orders, the applicant chatlenged- the RDC's orders bg wag of an apptication for contempt' rtthich utas resolued in fauour of the respondents'

7l

o

o

- ⁵ ^U The said Nanfumba Mustafa through his aduocates M/ S SemuAaba, Iga & Co. Aduocates did file Ciuil Suit No. O36 of 2O21 in uthich he claimed to naue bought the suit land from the applicant herein among others. - Ciuil suit No. O36 of 2021 is seeking orders ouer Mawokota Block 92 Plot 242 (754,755,756,757,758,759,76O and 761), uhich are the uery plots for uthich this application seeks an injunctiue order - The applicant has not fled any euidence to shottt that there is existence of ang tlveat to him at all. ul - The louer Court has alreadg issued an order of temporallg injunction bg consent of parties follouing an application to that Courl for temporarA injunction in respect of the said plots uut. - 'l'he applicant has not adduced ang euidence of ineparable loss if tlrc application is not granted. since he alreadg untawfully or illegally disposed of the said land. l-t. - It is an abuse of Court process for the applicant to claim the uery prop=rty, u.thich is a subject of ciuil suit in the loucr Court. x - The'. applicant ho,s no arguable appeal and there is no decree capable of being exeanted saue for costs. - It is a falsehoocl for the appli.ca.n.t to claim that he is suing on behalf of the estate, Aet he is not the adrninistrator of the estate of the late Tereza Nalugya. xu.

81. l

o

a

- 5 xttl The late Tereza Naluglga gified the suit lund before she died and cts suclt the propertA cannot form part of the estate of the late Tereza Nalugga as claimed in paragraph (n) of the applicant's affidauit' - xl l) It is a folsehood to claim that the applicant is in occttpation of the suit land Aet he alreadA disposed of the land to one Nanfumba Mustafa - 10 xu The applicant in his application seeks to staa proceedings in the lower court, which proceedings are not specificnlla stated, as such the orders sought are a not tenable at all.

The appticant filed an affidavit in rejoinder deponed by Luggya Andrew, dated 19th Octobe r, 202 1 briclly stating that;

- 15 a) This application is intended' to preserue the status quo pending the determination of the substantiue applica.ti.on. No.23O of 2O2 1 and hearing of the appeal as such it cannot amount to an abuse of the Court process' - b) The applicant is not a parta to all those cases cited bg the respondents and as such, he cannot be bound bg the proceedings therein' - 20 c),NanfumbaMustafaisnotapartll.tothisapplicationnorcantheapplicant respond- on his behalf since the court case is still on-going to ttthich th.e respondent is a party thereto, it cannot be subject of litigation in tlLis application. - d) Nanfumba Mustafa claims for only 3 acres and the claim in the appeal is frtr 26 acres. Nanfumba Mustafa's claim in ciuil suit No.36 of 2O21 is in respect of land he bought from the late Natuggga Tereza and not from the applicant'

o

el

- e) There is no proof that the applicant sold the suit land to Nanfumba Mustafa as alleged by the respondents as annextures "D1-D8" are not attached to *the affidavit in reply.* - f) The applicant is a beneficiary to the estate of the late Nalugya Tereza and can therefore pursue the appeal and this application in that capacity. - g) The applicant seeks to stay all proceedings in the High Court of Mpigi Civil/Land Suit No.08 of 2018, Luggya Andrew V Sembatya Joseph & Kikonyogo Richard until final determination of Civil Application No.230 of 2021 - h) It is in the interest of justice and fairness that this application for an interim order of injunction and proceedings be granted by this Court to preserve the status quo pending the determination of Civil Application No.230 of 2021.

At the hearing of the application, Mr. Luwalira Muhammad & Mr. Matovu Erias appeared for the applicant while the respondent was represented by Mr. Baingana John Paul.

Both counsel filed written submissions which they adopted at the hearing. 20 Counsel for the applicant submitted that Rule 2 (2) of the rules of this Court grants this Court inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for achieving the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the Court process. He further submitted that the applicant had satisfied all the conditions necessary for the grant of an interim order of injunction to wit; the applicant had filed a notice of 25 appeal as well as a Memorandum of Appeal in Civil Appeal No.089 of 2021,

$\mathsf{S}$

121.164 H

10 | Page - Lu gg/a Andrew V Sembatya Joseph and Kikonyogo Richard' secondly' that there wasasubstaltiveapplicationforanorderofinjunctionvideCivilApplication No.23oof2o2lpendingfixingandhearingbeforethisCourtandlastlythatthere exists a serious threat of execution because after the dismissal 0f civil Suit No ⁰⁸ of 2o 18, the respondents have gone ahead to cause a sub-division ofthe disputed land comprised in Ivlawokota Block 92 Plols 242 (into plots 754' 755'756,757,758,759,760,761). Headdedthattherespondentshavethreatened toevicttheapplicantandotherpersonsderivinginterestfromhimorthelate Naluggya Tereza. 10 5 - counsel further submitted that in the event that ttris court dectines to grant this application of irrlcriru order of iniunction and interim stay of proceeclings of the HighCourtinCivilSuitNo. O8of2018andCivilApplicationNo.23ool2027'the appeal shall be rendered nugatory. He adcled that the nature of interim orders sought are intended to prcscrve the status quo and despite the fact that ttre lower Court dismissed the application for stay of execution for lack of positive order, therespondentshadalreadyfraudulentlyregisteredthemselvesonthesuitland andhadgoneaheadtomakesub-divisions. Thattheywerenowintheprocess oftransferringthelandtootherunsuspectingthirdparties. Fleprayedthatan order of interim injunction be granted' 20 15

In reply, counsel for the respondents opposed the application and submitted tha: the applicants were in abuse of Court process because there was no explanation as to why the applicant, hled Misc. Application No O 1 1 of 2O2l which he had now

o

a

¹¹lf .ri{e

- 5abandoned. Incounsel,sview,theapplicantseekstoapprobateinthis application and reprobate in civil Suit No.o36 of 2021, which is litigating over similar property. He added that it was not in order for a party to come to Court and get an order for property that he already sold to another person' - He further submitted that the guidelines for the grant of temporary injunction 10 were laid down in Robert Kdvumd V M/s Hotel InternoltTonal SCCa No'8 oJ 799otowit;thattheapplicanthasaprimafaciecasewithaprobabilityof success. Counsel submitted that there was already a decrec of Court dismissing theaPplicant,SsuitwhereinhehadunlawfullymadeclaimsontheRespondents, landandhavinglostthemainsuit,theapplicantlostthe"primafaciecase"' 15Secondlythatthcapplicrrntmightsufferirrepar:'thledamagewhichwouldnotbe aclequately compensated in daurages' According to counsel' no irreparable dartragecanbeforcseenfromapersonwhodivesteclhisintercstasitwasa falsehoodfortheapplicanttoclaimthathewasstillinoccupation. Thirdly,that the balance of convenience was in favour of the respondents because they are 20 the rcgistered proprietors and were in possession'

Counselfurthersubmittedthattheapplicantsecksforanorderofstayof procecdingsandnotStayofexecution,assuclt,therearenoproceedingstostay in the lorver court or in this court and for the grounds for stay of execution' there was no decree to stay.

2sRegardingtheconditionsthattheapplicantmustsatisfytojustifythegranto[ aninterimorder,counselfortherespondentsa<lmittedthattherewasaNotice

¹²l,

o

o

- ⁵ oi Appea,l. Secondly thzrt the respondents were not a\rare of the existence of thc substantive application and thirdly that there was no evidence ofany threatened execution of the decree because the respondents were in occupation of their property rvith thcir land titlcs ancl the decree sought to be stayed was not attached to the application. counsel prayed that the application be dismissed. - In rejoinder, counsel for the applicant raised a point of law and submitted that theaJfidavitinreplyoffendedorderlRulel2oftheCPRbecauseitwassworn by the hrst rcsponclent only u'ithout the authority of the 2nd respondent' He relied on Bishop Pattlck Baligaslina V Kiiza Daniel & Ots, High Court Misc' Application No.7495 oJ 2O16. 10 - issue of abuse of Court process, counsel submitted that Application No.01 1 ol 2O2l rvas filed in error becausc the ' applicant had tried before to obtain a stay of execution but was denied and hai abandoned the idea. Further that the same application had never been served ontherespondentsnorendorsedbyCourt. ThattheapplicantinsteadlrleclCivil Application No.230 of 2o2l for a temporary injunctive order and later civil Application No.248 of 2027 for an interim ordcr pending the determination of the former. Counsel reiterated his earlier prayers' 15 20 Regarding the Miscellaneou s

I have carefully studied the submissions of both counsel and considered the evidence on record. Rules 6(2), 42(21 and,43 of the rules of this court give wide

discretion to this court to grant interim or substantive orders of stay ofexecution for purposcs of preserving the right of appeal,' but this should be where special' 25

a

o

## 5 circlrmstances exist. See Lqwrence Musiitua Kgazze V Eunice Busingge' Suprerne Coutt Ciril Applicatlon No.78 oJ 799O'

Before I delve into the merits of this application, I wish to dispose of the preliminary issue raised by counsel for thc applicant to thc cffect that thc affidavit in reply sworn by Kikonyongo Richard on 18th October, 2o21 offends 10 the provisions of Order 1 Rule 12 of the CPR in so far as it is sworn by the first respondent who purports to act for the 2nd respondent as well but without authority from the latter. He relied on Bishop Patrick Ballgasilm;a v Kiiza Danlel & ors, High court lfrisc, Applicatlon No. 7495 of 20 76 which is to the effect that an affrdavit is defective by reason of being sworn on behalf of anothe: 15 without showing that the deponent had the authority of another'

O.7 Rulc 72 states as follows;'

a

o

- 1) Where there are more plaintiffs than one, ang otrc or more of ttem mag beauthoisedbyangotherofthemtoappea\pleadoractforthatother in ang proceedings, and in like manner, where there are more defendanis 20 than one, anA one or more of them may be authoised bg arry 'other of them to appear, plead or act for that other in ang proceedings' - 2)Theauthoritgshallbeinwritingsignedbgthepartagiuingitandshall be filed in the case.

I have read thc affidavit in reply sworn by the 1st respondent and dated 18th 25 October, 2027. Paragraphs 1 and 2 state as follows;

L4 | l'r.r r'

1. That I am a male adult Ugandan of sound mind and the 1st Respondent herein with capacity to swear this affidavit.

2. That our advocates, M/S JP Baingana & Associated Advocates have read and explained to me and the 2nd respondent the contents of the affidavit of the applicant in support of the application and hereunder I make reply thereto for the respondents.

The 1st respondent clearly appears to have the authority to swear the affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent but has not attached the said authority. I am persuaded by the decision of Bashaija K. Andrew in Lena Nakalema Binaisa & 3 Ors V Mucunguzi Myers, High Court Miscellaneous Application No.0460 of 2013 where he held that;

"An affidavit is defective by reason of being sworn on behalf of another without showing that the deponent had the authority of the other. In this case the affidavit is incurably defective for non-compliance with the requirements of the law."

Consequently, the affidavit sworn by Kikonyogo Richard and dated 18th October, 20 2021 is hereby struck off for non-compliance with O.1 R12 of the CPR.

In an application proceeding by affidavit evidence, where there is no opposing affidavit, the application stands unchallenged. See decision of Lugayizi, J in Makerere University V St. Mark Education Institute Ltd & Ors (1994) KALR 26.

15 | Page

$\mathsf{S}$

The applicant brought this application under sections 10 and 12 of the $\mathsf{S}$ Judicature Act, Rules 2(2), 6(2) (b), 43(1) and (2) of the Rules of this Court seeking for an interim order of injunction and an interim order of stay of proceedings in the High Court of Mpigi, Civil Suit No.08 of 2018, Lugya Andrew V Sembatya Joseph & Kikonyogo Richard until the hearing and final determination and disposal of Civil Application No.230 of 2021. 10

In paragraph (e) of his affidavit in support of the application, the applicant stated that on the 10th of August 2020, Hon Lady Justice Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti dismissed Civil Suit No. 08 of 2018 with costs. I would therefore wonder which proceedings the applicant seeks to stay when there is already a judgment of the lower Court.

Stay of proceedings is a temporary suspension of the regular order of proceedings in a cause by direction or order of the Court, usually to await the action of one of the parties in regard to some omitted step or some act which the Court has required him to perform as incidental to the suit. See Black's Law Dictionary,

4^th Edition, 20 fau. It is usually a relief in the form of suspension of proceedings in an action, which may be temporary until something requisite or ordered is done; or permanently, where to proceed would be improper.

As a matter of law, a stay of proceedings puts a stop or a stay on another conduct of the proceedings in Court at the stage to which those proceedings have reached. An order of stay of proceedings avoids the trial or hearing of the action taking

16 | Page

计总址 金属

⁵ place where the Cottrt finds it just and convenient to make such C)rder' See Ruling of Cheborion Barishaki, 'JA in GodJreg Sentongo V David Balga X;aturnbo, Court of Appeat Chtlt Appllcation No'274 ol 2O77'

IcannotthereforegrantthesecondorderofslayofprocecdingsirrlheHighCourt of Mpigi Civil Suit No. O8 of 2018, Luggra Andrew V Sembatya Joseph and Kikonyogo Richard because there are no proceedings to stay' There is a judgment of Court dated lOth August, 2020 where Lady Justice Comelia Kakooza Sabiiti dismissed the suit with costs. See paragraph (C) of the application, paragraph (e) of the affidavit in support of the application'

Nevertheless, I will proceed to determine the application whether an intcrim order of injunction being sought by the applicant restraining the respondents' their agents, servants, workers and any othcr person acting on their behalf or anyotherpersoninterferingwithselling,mutating'transferring'evictingor anybody deriving interest from them from disposing offor receiving any payment in respect of land comprised in lvlawokota Block 92 plots 19O' 193 & ²⁴² (754,755,756,757,75a,75g,760361 all out of plot 2421 can be granted pending the determination and final disposal of civil Application No.230 of 2021 arising from the High Court of Mpigi Civil / Land Suit No'08 of 2018' Lurya Andre-uv Versus Sembatya Joseph and Kikonyogo Richard' 15 o ²⁰

ln Zubeda Mohanned & Sadru Mohamed V Lalla Kaka Wallia & Anot' Suprerne Court Ciail Reference No'O7 oJ 2075 whidn cited with approval 25

17 lP

o

⁵ HuanSunglndustrtesLtd'vs.rajdinHusslenand2othersSCI|/IANo. T9cJ 2OOa, ttle Supreme Court stated as follows;

> "Considerations for the grant of an inteim order of stag of execution c'; interiminjunctionarewhetherthereisasubstantiueapplicationpendittg anduhetherthereisaseiousthreatofexecutionbeforehearingofthe substantiueapplication. Needlesstosag,theremustbeaNoticeofAppeal. SeeHuar]sunglndustrtesLtdus. TaJdlnEusslenand2othersSCMA No, 79 oJ2OOa.

In summary, there are three conditions that an applicant must satisfy to justifu the grant of on inteim order:

i., . 15

o

o

l. ^AcomPetent Notice of APPeul; 2. A substdntiue aPPlication; and

3. A serious Llreut of execution''

AnoticeofappealwasflledintheHighCourtofUgandaatMpigionthel8th 2020 as pcr anncxture "BB" attached to the applicant also filed ,a Memorandum of Appeal applican t's marked as day of August application. The ztrrrrexture "CC".

TheapplicantfurtherfiledasubstantiveapplicationreferencedasCivil Application No.230 of 2027 for an order of injunction and stay of proceedings of ordersoftheHighCourtofUgandaatMpigiinCivilsuitNo.o8of2oTSwhichis pending hearing and determination before this Court a-lthough the applicant did

18 lPage

5 not avail court with a copy of this application. However from the Registry records, the same was filed on 3rd September,2O2T'

As to whether there is a serious and imminent threat of execution bcfore hearing of the substantive application, counsel for the applicant submitted that a serious threat of execution existed because after the dismissal of civit Suit No.08 rrf 10 2018, the respondents went ahead to cause a sub-division of the disputed lan.l comprised in Mawokota Block 92 Plots 242 (into plots 754' 755,756,757,758,759,760,761). That the respondents have threatened to evict t].e applicant and other persons deriving interest from him or the late Naluggya Tereza. I therefore hnd that there is a serious threat of execution'

15 For the reasons above, I allow the application and make the following orders:-

1. An interim order of injunction is hereby issued restraining thc respondents, their agents, servants, workers and any other person acting on their behalf or any other person interfering with selling, mutating, transferring, evicting or anybocly deriving interest from them from 20 disposing off or receiving any payment in respect of land compriseC in Mawokota Block 92 plots 190, 193 & ²⁴² 1754,755,756,757,75a,759,76O,767 all out of plot 2421 pending the determination and hnal disposal of civil Application No.230 of 2o2l arisingfromtheHighCourtofMpigiCivilsuitNo0Bof2018,Lurya 25 Anclrew Versus Sembatya Joseph and Kikonyogo Richard'

19 | 1' :.''

o

O

- 2. The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the substantive application for an order of injunction. - 3. The Registrar of this Court is hereby directed to cause list Civil Application No. 230 of 2021 for hearing in the next 21 days.

I so order.

$\mathsf{S}$

$\hat{\alpha}_{\alpha}$

$\epsilon \rightarrow \infty$

$\cdot$ 0

Dated at Kampala this day of Dec 2021. 10

$\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}^{n+1}}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{R}^{n+1}}$

起点

$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{A}}(x)$

$\mathcal{L}^{\infty}$

**CHEBORION BARISHAKI**

(表示)

JUSTICE OF APPEAL

20 | Page