Uganda Judgment

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Bukera and 4 Others v Kabenge (Misc.Application No.O913 of 2023) [2025] UGHCLD 105 (27 June 2025)

Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctions Status Quo Orders Access Rights Appeal Proceedings

Citation: [2025] UGHCLD 105
Status: Judgment
Jurisdiction: Uganda
Court: HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Panel: Alividza, J
Case number: Misc.Application No.O913 of 2023
Language: English

More details

Court: HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Panel: Alividza, J
Case number: Misc.Application No.O913 of 2023
Language: English

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

Holding and result

The court found that the applicants were no longer in use of the access road that was the subject matter of the main suit, as the status quo had changed following the construction of a perimeter wall. An alternative access road was already in place. The court held that the application for suspension and a mandatory injunction had been overtaken by events and that the pending appeal would address the substantive issues. Consequently, the application was dismissed as there was no longer a live issue to be determined by the orders sought.

Court disposition

application dismissed

Orders

The application is dismissed as overtaken by events.
Each party shall bear their own costs.

Material facts

Parties

Bukera Bosco

Applicant Counsel: Wamimbi Samson

Mugisha Henry

Applicant Counsel: Wamimbi Samson

Mutiibwa Innocent

Applicant Counsel: Wamimbi Samson

Kigundu Ahmada

Applicant Counsel: Wamimbi Samson

Kabeera Jenifer

Applicant Counsel: Wamimbi Samson

Kabenge Jackson

Respondent Counsel: Mudaki Ronald

Procedural history

Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Suspension of Proceedings and Mandatory Injunction Pending Appeal

Questions and positions

Legal issues

01
Whether Misc. App No. 833 of 2023 and Misc. App No. 647 of 2023 should be suspended pending appeal.
02
Whether a mandatory injunction should issue restoring the status quo of the access road as at the time of filing Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2023.
03
Whether the application is overtaken by events.

Party arguments

Applicant: The applicants sought suspension of the referenced miscellaneous applications and a mandatory injunction to restore the status quo of the access road as it existed at the time of filing Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2023. They argued that the relief was necessary to preserve their rights pending the determination of the appeal.
Respondent: The respondent argued that the application was bad in law and that the reliefs sought had been overtaken by events. The respondent contended that the applicants had no cause of action as the status quo had already changed, a perimeter wall had been constructed, and an alternative access road was available.

Court’s reasoning

Legal principles

01
Order 43 Rule 4 and Order 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules; case law on injunctions.

An application for injunctive relief must demonstrate that the applicant will suffer irreparable harm, that the balance of convenience is in their favor, and that there is a prima facie case.
02
Section 33 of the Judicature Act; general principles of equity.

The court will not grant relief where the subject matter has fundamentally changed or the application is overtaken by events.

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the applicants were no longer in use of the access road that was the subject matter of the main suit, as the status quo had changed following the construction of a perimeter wall. An alternative access road was already in place. The court held that the application for suspension and a mandatory injunction had been overtaken by events and that the pending appeal would address the substantive issues. Consequently, the application was dismissed as there was no longer a live issue to be determined by the orders sought.

Obiter and limits

Where the status quo has changed and alternative remedies exist, injunctive relief may be rendered moot.
The existence of a pending appeal may be sufficient to address the substantive rights of the parties.

Court disposition

application dismissed

The application is dismissed as overtaken by events.
Each party shall bear their own costs.

Source and reliance status

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2025] UGHCLD 105

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGHCOURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

LAND DIVISION

MISC. APPLICATION NO.0913 OF 2023

(ARISING FROM MISC. APP NO. 833 OF 2023)

(ARISING FROM MISC. APP NO. 648 OF 2023)

(ARISING FROM CIVIL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2023)

BUKERA BOSCO::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: MUGISHA HENRY:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: MUTIIBWA INNOCENT:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: KIGUNDU AHMADA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: KABEERA JENIFER:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: VERSUS

<table> KABENGE JACKSON:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: BEFORE HON LADY JUSTICE ELIZABETH JANE ALIVIDZA RULING

REPRESENTATION

The Applicants were represented by Counsel Wamimbi Samson. The Respondent was represented by Counsel Mudaki Ronald.

INTRODUCTION

The Applicants brought this Application under Article 126(2) C of the 25 Constitution, Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 43 Rule 4 and Order 52 Rule 1,2 and 3 of the *Civil Procedure Rules* seeking orders that;

a. Misc. App No. 833 of 2023 and Misc. App No. 647 of 2023 be suspended.

$\mathsf{S}$

- b. A mandatory Injunction Order doth issue restoring the status quo of the suit existing road to what it was at the time of filing civil Appeal No.0035 of 2023. - c. Costs of the suit be provided for. - 2( The grounds of this Application are contained in an Aflidavit in support of this Application deponed by l"t Applicant.

The Respondent in reply to this Application averred that the Chamber Summons and reliefs sought therein are bad in law. That the Applicant has no cause of action against the Respondent since the Application has been over taken by events.

Both parties filed written submissions that have been considered in determining this Application.

I note that Applicants in this case are not in use of the access road that was the subject matter of the main suit. By the time this

Application was filed, the status quo of the access road had changed. This was after the Applicant constructing the perimeter wall. There is already an alternative access road in place. 45

There is a pending Appeal that will dispose of the issues. This Application is overtaken by events.

I accordingly dismiss it. Each party bears their costs. 50

So ordered

67(+

Elizabeth Jane Alividza 55

$\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$

$\n *inc*\n$

Judge

27<sup>th</sup> June 2025

Judgment on ECCMIS 60

incted

Elizabeth Jane Alividza

Authorities