Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Jjumba Vs Javiira Sebiitosi (Misc.Application No. 671 of 2019) [2019] UGHCLD 49 (29 August 2019)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the wording of the previous order granting the applicant free access and quiet enjoyment of the suit kibanja amounted to a final order, which is inappropriate at the interlocutory stage. The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo, not to determine possession or rights before the main suit is resolved. Therefore, the order was varied to require both parties to maintain the status quo of the suit property as it was at the time of the suit, restraining both from waste, alienation, disposal, or destruction of the property until final determination.

Court disposition

application_allowed_in_part

Orders

  • Both parties shall maintain the status quo of the suit property as it was at the time of the suit.
  • Neither party nor their agents shall waste, alienate, dispose of, or destroy the subject matter until final determination of the suit.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of this application.

02

Material facts

Parties

Muhammed Jjumba

Applicant

Javiira Sebiitosi

Respondent Counsel: Kangaho

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant sought to freely access and quietly enjoy possession of the suit kibanja, arguing that the temporary injunction should grant such relief pending the final determination of the suit.
Respondent
The respondent opposed the application, contending that both parties claim possession of the suit kibanja and that granting the applicant exclusive possession would amount to a final order before the main suit is determined.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 41 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules

    A temporary injunction is intended to preserve the status quo of the subject matter until the final determination of the suit.

  2. 02

    Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act

    The court has inherent powers to ensure that justice is done and to vary its orders as necessary.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the wording of the previous order granting the applicant free access and quiet enjoyment of the suit kibanja amounted to a final order, which is inappropriate at the interlocutory stage. The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo, not to determine possession or rights before the main suit is resolved. Therefore, the order was varied to require both parties to maintain the status quo of the suit property as it was at the time of the suit, restraining both from waste, alienation, disposal, or destruction of the property until final determination.

Obiter and limits

  • The suit kibanja is in dispute and both parties claim possession, making it improper to grant exclusive possession to one party at this stage.
  • Preservation of the status quo is essential to prevent injustice and irreparable harm before the final determination of the suit.

Court disposition

application_allowed_in_part

  • Both parties shall maintain the status quo of the suit property as it was at the time of the suit.
  • Neither party nor their agents shall waste, alienate, dispose of, or destroy the subject matter until final determination of the suit.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs of this application.

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

[2019] UGHCLD 49

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

LAND DIVISION

MISC. APPLICATION NO. 671 OF 2019

ARISING FROM M. A NO.1398 OF 2018

(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO.681 OF 2018)

MUHAMMED JJUMBA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT

VERSES

JAVIIRA SEBIITOSI :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE HENRY I. KAWESA

RULING

Under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, this Court has inherent powers to ensure that justice is done. O.41 r4 of the Civil Procedure Rules empowers this Court to vary a temporary injunction order.

I have looked at the application and the submissions therein. The wording of the order amounts to a final order when it states that;

*‘the Applicant freely access and quietly enjoy possession of the suit kibanja……..’*

The suit kibanja is in dispute and both parties claim they are in possession. Without a determination of the final suit, such an order is deemed to amount to a final order.

This Court is aware that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the *status quo* as it is before the suit is finally determined. If it is a kibanja, then whoever is on it with whatever is utlised thereon as at the time of the suit is what is preserved from alienation or waste.

I will therefore vary the order by ordering that both parties *‘maintain the* *status quo of the suit property as it was’* at the time of the suit.

There should be no waste, alienation, disposal or destruction of the subject matter both by the Applicant or the Respondent or their agents until the final determination of this suit.

The application is allowed only in the terms as above.

Each party to bear its own costs of this application.

I so order.

……………………

Henry I. Kawesa

JUDGE

29/08/2019

29/08/2019:

Kangaho for the Respondent.

Respondent present.

Applicant absent.

Court:

Ruling delivered to the parties above.

……………………

Henry I. Kawesa

JUDGE

29/08/2019

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Section 98 Civil Procedure Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 41 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.