[2012] UGHC 260

[2012] UGHC 260

The court found that the applicants are in possession of the suit land and seek to preserve the status quo pending the determination of the main suit. The applicants demonstrated a prima facie case by raising serious triable issues regarding their beneficial and proprietory interests in the property. The court was satisfied that the applicants would suffer irreparable injury if evicted, as damages would not adequately compensate for loss of their home and occupation. The balance of convenience favored the applicants, who reside on the land, as their interests would be better protected by maintaining the status quo. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to grant a temporary...

Citation
[2012] UGHC 260
Parties
Applicant: Nalule Mariam; Applicant: Nalumu Shadia (through Nalule Mariam her next friend); Applicant: Zawedde Amina; Applicant: Sempala Musa; Respondent: Sengendo Swaibu
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
29 November 2012
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 302 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
Tuhaise, J
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Status Quo Preservation, Beneficial Interest, Proprietory Interest, Irreparable Injury
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Temporary Injunctions Status Quo Preservation Beneficial Interest Proprietory Interest Irreparable Injury

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nalule Mariam

Applicant

Nalumu Shadia (through Nalule Mariam her next friend)

Applicant

Zawedde Amina

Applicant

Sempala Musa

Applicant

Sengendo Swaibu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case with probability of success to warrant a temporary injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors the grant of a temporary injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants are in possession of the suit land and seek to preserve the status quo pending the determination of the main suit. The applicants demonstrated a prima facie case by raising serious triable issues regarding their beneficial and proprietory interests in the property. The court was satisfied that the applicants would suffer irreparable injury if evicted, as damages would not adequately compensate for loss of their home and occupation. The balance of convenience favored the applicants, who reside on the land, as their interests would be better protected by maintaining the status quo. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to grant a temporary...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is granted restraining the respondent, his servants or agents from trespassing upon, interfering with, or dealing with the suit kibanja or enforcing any terms of the instrument of revocation executed in 2011 until the determination of the main suit or further orders of the court.
  • Costs of the application will be in the cause.