[2025] UGHCLD 123

## **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

#### **IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**

### **(LAND DIVISION)**

#### **MISCLLANEOUS APPEAL NO .0944 OF 2025**

### **(ARISING FROM MISC. APPLICATION NO. 424 OF 2025)**

**(ALL ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 173 OF 2025)**

**NAMALE SHAMIM ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT VERSUS**

**NATALIYA NABBIMBA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT**

**(Alias Natasha Nabbimba)**

# **BEFORE; HON. LADY JUSTICE NALUZZE AISHA BATALA RULING**

## *Introduction;*

1. The applicant brought this appeal against the respondent by way of notice of motion under section 98 of the civil procedure act, order 50 rule 8 and order 52 rules 1,2 and 3 of the civil procedure rules for orders that:

- i) The ruling and orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 424 of 2025 dated the 15th day of April 2025 and delivered via ECCMIS on the 20th day of April 2025 granting an order for a Temporary Injunction by the Learned Registrar H/W Kagoda Ntende Samuel be reversed and set aside. - ii) That costs of the appeal be awarded to the applicant.

## *Applicant's evidence;*

- 2. The application is supported by an affidavit deponed by the applicant which briefly states that; - i) That the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 173 of 2025 against the applicant for trespass, vacant possession and general damages. - ii) That subsequently, the respondent filed Misc. Application No. 424 of 2025 seeking for orders of a temporary injunction against the applicant. - iii) That the said application for temporary injunction was determined by the assistant registrar on the 15th day of April 2025.

- iv) That the learned assistant registrar erred in law and fact when he failed to address the issue in the unsubstantiated discrepancy in the names of the respondent in the application. - v) That the learned assistant registrar erred in law when he failed to conduct a locus visit in the temporary injunction application. - vi) That the learned assistant registrar erred in law and fact when he held that the respondent was to suffer irreparable damage incapable of being compensated and that the balance of convenience lies to the respondent.

# *Respondent's evidence;*

- 3. The application is responded to by an affidavit in reply deponed by the respondent which briefly states that; - i) That the issue of names was substantially explained in the affidavit in rejoinder in the temporary injunction application that Natasha is a diminutive from the Russian name

Nataliya(Natalia) often used outside Russia but the two names are the same.

- ii) That I did show evidence that I was married to Samson Nabbimba(deceased) the second registered proprietor and I remain a beneficiary to the said estate. - iii) That it was agreed in court on the 4th day of May 2025 that the parties would themselves visit locus and provide court with a status quo. - iv) That on the 5th of March, the respondent and her lawyers went to the suit land but the applicant never turned up despite the many calls. - v) That in any event the issue of locus does not in any way disadvantage the applicant's case. - vi) That the application lacks merit and the applicant should focus on the main suit to determine the rights of the parties.

# *Representation;*

4. The applicant was rep resented by Counsel Husein Hilal of Hilal & Co advocates whereas the respondent was represented by M/S

Sekabanja & Co. Advocates. Both parties filed written submissions which I have considered in the determination of this application.

#### *Grounds for determination;*

- i) That the learned Assistant Registrar erred in law and fact when he failed to address the issue of the unsubstantiated discrepancies in the names of the respondent on grounds that Civil Suit No. 173 of 2025 discloses no prima facie case for recovery of land. - ii) The learned Assistant Registrar erred in law and fact when he held that the respondent would suffer irreparable damage that would be incapable of being compensated in damages. - iii) The learned Assistant Registrar erred in law and fact when he held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the respondent thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice. - iv) That the learned Assistant Registrar failed to conduct locus visit on the suit land thereby arriving at a wrong conclusion on the status quo of the Suitland.

# *Resolution and determination of the grounds;*

*Ground 1: That the learned Registrar erred in law and fact when he failed to address the issue of the unsubstantiated discrepancy in the names of the respondent on grounds that Civil Suit No. 173 of 2025 discloses no prima facie case for recovery of land.*

- 5. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Registrar erred when he failed to make a finding in respect of the respondent's different names in issue owing to the fact that the record revealed clear discrepancies in her names and description. That the learned Assistant Registrar did not canvas this issue in his ruling and did not take into account the clear disparities in the names and identity of the respondent and thus arrived at a wrong conclusion. - 6. Counsel for the applicant added that the respondent is not the registered proprietor of the suit-land as she alleges. That a one *"NATALIYA NABBIMBA alias NATASHA NABBIMBA"* (the respondent) and when raised as preliminary objection, it was never considered by the learned Assistant Registrar.

- 7. That the land in issue which is comprised in Kyadondo Block 249 Plot 668 situate at Bunga is registered in the names of *NABBIMBA SAMSON, NABBIMBA NATASHA* and *KABAALU NABBIMBA SAMSON* and not *NABBIMBA NATASHA* and her alleged husband *NABBIMBA SAMSON*. - 8. Counsel for the applicant added that the Certificate of title is registered in the names of *NABBIMBA SAMSON, NABBIMBA NATASHA* and *KABAALU NABBIMBA SAMSON* but the respondent's name is *NATALIYA NABBIMBA* as it appears in the pleadings and also *POLIVODA NATALIYA* as it appears on the alleged marriage certificate marked as Annexure C of the affidavit in rejoinder. That Court should take note of the fact that all the names used by the respondent are totally different to wit *NATASHA, NATALIYA* and *POLIVODA*. - 9. Counsel for the respondent in reply submitted that these issues are supposed to be addressed in the main suit and not in the application for a temporary injunction. Counsel added that the appellant should work towards the expeditious hearing of the suit

to determine the rightful owner of the land and not insist on technicalities.

#### *Analysis by court;*

- **10.** Section 76(1)(h) of the Civil Procedure Act provides; "**An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or by any law for the time being in force from no other orders- (h) any order under the rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by the rules"** - **11.** Order 50 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides thereof that any person aggrieved by an order of a Registrar may appeal from the order to the Judge of the High Court. The appeal shall be by motion on Notice. - *12.* The duty of the first appellant court is to re-evaluate/reappraise the evidence on record. *(See; Fr Narsensio Begumisa & Ors v*

### *Eric Tibebaga SCCA No .17 of 2002)*

*13.* Therefore, this appeal shall be determined by re-examining the evidence on record in Miscellaneous Application No. 424 of 2025

- *14.* I have perused the Chamber summons in Miscellaneous Application No. 424 (hereinafter referred to as the "application") of 2025 including all the affidavits filed by the parties and it is quite clear the applicant in the application is Nataliya Nabbimba. - *15.* In the affidavit in support of the application, the applicant attached a certificate of title and marriage certificate respectively. Upon perusal of the Certificate of title attached, it appears the land is registered in the names of Nabbimba Samson Kabbalu, Samson Nabbimba and Natasha Nabbimba. - *16.* In the certificate of marriage attached, the names of the parties on it are indicated as Nabbimba Samson and Natalia Polidova (allegedly the respondent in the matter and the applicant in the temporary injunction application) a Ukrainian Citizen. - *17.* In an attempt to explain the discrepancies, the respondent in rejoinder to the application stated as follows; *"That Polidova Natalia was my maiden name until I married Samson Nabbimba. Natasha is a diminutive form of the Russian name*

# *"Nataliya" often used outside Russia, primarily in English speaking countries and that the two names are the same."*

- *18.* In his ruling dated 15th April, 2025, the learned Assistant Registrar did not address the issue or resolve it in any way. I find it erroneous on the part the learned Assistant Registrar to overlook the point and not address it or refer it to the trial judge for determination. The determination of the point had far reaching effects on the locus standi of the applicant in the application. - *19.* In the case of *Dima Dominic Poro vs Inyani Godfrey Civil Appeal No.17 of 2016*, locus standi was defined as a place of standing, it means the right to appear in court and conversely to say that a person has no right to appear or be heard in a specific proceeding. - *20.* I do not agree with the submission by counsel for the respondent that the issue ought to have been determined in the main suit. It is then the respondent's case that an issue touching her locus standi was never relevant to the application.

- *21.* In my view, the question or any questions as to locus standi are relevant at any stage of the suit including the entire applications antecedent thereto because locus standi relates to the right that one has to be heard in the court of law or other appropriate proceedings. *(See; Kithende Appolonia & 2 others v Eleanor Wismer CACA No 34 of 2010)* - *22.* To that end questions of locus standi like it is in the instant matter are not a preserve of the main suit. The appellant was at liberty to raise it at any point including the application. - *23.* The respondent sought a temporary injunction upon filing a suit against the appellant. In the application like it is in the suit, the respondent alleged to be the registered proprietor of the suit land to wit Kyadondo Block 249 Plot 668 situate at Bunga. It is quite clear that the name is Natasha Nabbimba as opposed to Nataliya Nabbimba. It is also obvious that the two names are not the same at all. - *24.* Within the law there are mechanisms put in place to effect name changes and maintain a particular name for all intents and

purposes to avoid problematic situations like in the instant case. There is a real risk that the court may be misled into issuing an order in favour of a person engaged in impersonation.

- *25.* The attempt by the respondent to justify the discrepancy by stating that Natasha is a diminutive and is the same a Nataliya in Russia cannot suffice and at the same time undermines the legal tools put in place to effect such changes. - *26.* I have not found any evidence to confirm that there was ever any change of name from Nataliya Polidova to Nataliya Nabbimba or Natasha Nabbimba. - *27.* I thus find that the respondent (Nataliya Nabbimba) who was the applicant in Miscellaneous Application No. 424 of 2025 did not have the locus to bring the application in respect of land registered in the names of (Natasha Nabbimba). The respondent cannot be permitted to assume whatever persona she finds convenient for the occasion. - *28.* In the premises, ground one of the appeal succeeds and the same is resolved in the affirmative. I do not find it necessary to

determine other grounds of appeal since the appeal succeeds on this ground alone.

*29.* The instant appeal succeeds with the following orders:

- i) The ruling and orders of the Assistant Registrar in Miscellaneous Application No. 424 of 2025 granting a temporary injunction to the respondent against the appellant is hereby set aside. - ii) Costs of this appeal and Miscellaneous Application No. 424 of 2025 shall follow the outcome of the main suit.

### **I SO ORDER**

## **NALUZZE AISHA BATALA Ag. JUDGE. 26 th /06/2025**

**Delivered Electronically via ECCMIS on the 26 th day of June 2025.**