[2017] UGHCCD 96

[2017] UGHCCD 96

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie case, as there were serious questions to be tried regarding ownership of the property, with both parties presenting competing claims supported by documentation. The court determined that the applicants faced a real probability of irreparable harm if...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] UGHCCD 96
Parties
Applicant: Rashida Abdul Hanali; Applicant: Mohamed Allibhai; Respondent: Suleiman Adrisi
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
20 July 2017
Case Number
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION No. 0011 OF 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary and Mandatory Injunctions Pending Main Suit
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
Stephen Mubiru, J
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunctions, Mandatory Injunctions, Status Quo Preservation, Repossession Disputes, Mesne Profits, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land and Property Temporary Injunctions Mandatory Injunctions Status Quo Preservation Repossession Disputes Mesne Profits 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rashida Abdul Hanali

Applicant

Mohamed Allibhai

Applicant

Suleiman Adrisi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Temporary and Mandatory Injunctions Pending Main Suit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case with a probability of success warranting a temporary injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are likely to suffer irreparable damage if the injunction is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors the grant of a temporary or mandatory injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie case, as there were serious questions to be tried regarding ownership of the property, with both parties presenting competing claims supported by documentation. The court determined that the applicants faced a real probability of irreparable harm if the property were alienated or encumbered before the main suit was resolved, as such actions could compromise their ability to assert their rights. The respondent's financial position, including mortgaging the property and admitting to having invested all his resources, heightened the risk that he would be unable to compensate the applicants if the suit was decided against him....

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • A temporary injunction is issued restraining the respondent, his agents, workers, tenants, or persons claiming under him from selling, transferring, disposing of, alienating, or creating encumbrances over the property until final disposal of the suit.
  • A mandatory injunction is issued requiring the respondent to deposit all rental income accruing from the property from August 2017 into a bank account designated by the Assistant Registrar until final disposal of the suit or further court order.