Share
Jjumba Vs Javiira Sebiitosi (Misc.Application No. 671 of 2019) [2019] UGHCLD 49 (29 August 2019)
- Citation
- [2019] UGHCLD 49
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kawesa, J
- Case number
- Misc.Application No. 671 of 2019
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kawesa, J
- Case number
- Misc.Application No. 671 of 2019
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
ApplicantJaviira Sebiitosi
Respondent Counsel: Kangaho03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the wording of the temporary injunction order amounts to a final order before determination of the main suit.
- 02
Whether the status quo of the suit property should be preserved pending final determination.
- 03
Whether both parties should be restrained from alienating, wasting, or disposing of the suit property.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Judgment
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
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.