[2017] UGHCLD 360

[2017] UGHCLD 360

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, as she did not provide evidence of ownership or legal interest in the suit land. There was no proof that the property was in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated, nor was there evidence of irreparable injury that could not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] UGHCLD 360
Parties
Applicant: Zam Nambi; Respondent: Bujjingo Ayub; Respondent: Kassim Abdirahim; Respondent: Kasaba B. M. Investments
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 November 2017
Case Number
Misc Application No. 1013 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Kawesa, J
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Status Quo Preservation, Registered Proprietorship, Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Injury, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
english
Land and Property Civil Procedure Temporary Injunctions Status Quo Preservation Registered Proprietorship Prima Facie Case Irreparable Injury Balance of Convenience

Source-derived case record

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

Zam Nambi

Applicant

Bujjingo Ayub

Respondent

Kassim Abdirahim

Respondent

Kasaba B. M. Investments

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary Injunction

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success, as she did not provide evidence of ownership or legal interest in the suit land. There was no proof that the property was in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated, nor was there evidence of irreparable injury that could not be compensated by damages, especially since the pleadings included a prayer for damages and an account of rent. The balance of convenience favored the respondents, who are the registered proprietors with protected rights under the law. Consequently, the application for a temporary injunction lacked merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for a temporary injunction is dismissed.
  • Costs to abide the main cause.