Court name
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Case number
Miscellaneous Application-2013/800
Judgment date
11 April 2014

Mugizi v Luswata & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application-2013/800) [2014] UGHCLD 17 (11 April 2014);

Cite this case
[2014] UGHCLD 17
Coram
Bashaija, J

An application for a temporary injunction

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

LAND DIVISION

MISCILLENOUS APPLICATION NO. 800 OF 2013

(Arising from Civil Suit No. 385 of 2013)

 

ANNE THERESA MUGIZI::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT

(Administrator of the Estate of the Late Davis Joash Mugizi)

VERSUS

  1. LUSWATA N. CHWA Alias MULANGILA
  2. BUWEMBO PETER Alias MUTONGOLE   ::::::::::::::: RESPONDENTS
  3. ZAWEDDE T. Alias NALINYA

BEFORE: HON MR JUSTICE BASHAIJA K. ANDREW

 

Case summary

Brief facts

This application is brought by Chamber Summons under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 41 rr. 1, 2 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking for orders that:

  1. A temporary injunction issues restraining the Respondents, their agents, servants, assigns and representatives from trespassing, entering, inspecting and in any way dealing with the Plaintiff’s land (kibanja) situate at Wamala village, Nabweru Sub-county, Wakiso District pending the hearing and disposal of Civil Suit No. 385 of 2013.
  2. Costs of this application be provided for.

Held

  1. Therefore, in the instant application aspects which relate to the proprietary rights of the parties to the suit land are premature, and will only be addressed when the case is heard on its merits.
  2. I find that even though the Applicant prays for general damages in the head suit, they would not be an adequate relief to atone the injuries claimed since the Applicant is in possession of the suit land which is also used as a source of livelihood to benefit the her entire family. Just because damages can subsequently atone for an injury does not mean the injury should be let to occur in the first place in order to be atoned for. That would be an absurd contradiction of the main purpose of the principle as to the preservation of the status quo. I am satisfied that the Applicant will suffer irreparable injury once the temporary injunction is not granted.
  3. On the principle of the balance of convenience, it is settled law that if court is in doubt on any of the above principles it will decide the application on a balance of convenience. This court is not in any doubt given the fact that the Applicant has established in her pleadings that she has a prima facie case with a probability of success, and that that she will suffer irreparable damage if the application is not granted, and that there’s need to preserve the status quo.

 

 The application was allowed with costs in the cause.