Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Nabisere Jane Leticia and Another v Gerald Kasigwa and Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No. 678 of 2023) [2025] UGHCLD 78 (2 June 2025)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The application for stay of execution was dismissed because the status quo of the suit land had already changed. The 1st respondent was registered as proprietor following a sale agreement and transfer forms signed by the 2nd applicant and Elizabeth Nalukenge. The applicants failed to set aside the orders that led to the registration of the 1st respondent as proprietor. The court found that the application was overtaken by events and that the only way forward was to resolve the main suit on its merits. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Court disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party bears their own costs.
  • Main suit fixed for 16th October 2025 at 10:20 for fixing hearing date.
  • Parties to be served accordingly.

02

Material facts

Parties

Nabisere Jane Leticia

Applicant Counsel: Kabega Bogezi & Bukenya Advocates

Alex Walugembe

Applicant Counsel: Kabega Bogezi & Bukenya Advocates

Gerald Kasigwa

Respondent Counsel: Tulips Advocates

Commissioner Land Registration

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Purchase Price of Suit Land: UGX 60,000,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants argued that the execution of court orders registered under SI KCCA 00011886 and any registration of the 1st respondent as proprietor on Kyadondo Block 33 Plot 712 at Mutundwe should be stayed pending the hearing and disposal of the main suit. They contended that the status quo at the time of filing the main suit should be maintained to prevent irreparable harm and preserve the estate of the late Charles Kayemba Lwanga.
Respondent
The 1st respondent argued that the status quo of the suit land had changed, as he purchased the land from the 2nd applicant and Elizabeth Nalukenge, who were registered on the suit land in their individual capacities. The transaction occurred on 17th October 2003, and the land ceased to be part of the estate. The respondent asserted that he was properly registered as proprietor and that the application was moot.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 64 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 22 rules 26 & 89(1), Order 41 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules

    A stay of execution is granted to preserve the subject matter pending determination of the main suit, but only where the applicant demonstrates that the status quo has not changed and that irreparable harm may result.

  2. 02

    Ugandan case law and Civil Procedure Rules

    Temporary injunctions are discretionary and require the applicant to show a prima facie case, likelihood of irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favors the applicant.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application for stay of execution was dismissed because the status quo of the suit land had already changed. The 1st respondent was registered as proprietor following a sale agreement and transfer forms signed by the 2nd applicant and Elizabeth Nalukenge. The applicants failed to set aside the orders that led to the registration of the 1st respondent as proprietor. The court found that the application was overtaken by events and that the only way forward was to resolve the main suit on its merits. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Obiter and limits

  • The only way forward is to have the main suit resolved on merit as soon as possible.
  • Parties should be served accordingly for the fixing of the hearing date.

Court disposition

application dismissed

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party bears their own costs.
  • Main suit fixed for 16th October 2025 at 10:20 for fixing hearing date.
  • Parties to be served accordingly.

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 78

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA $\mathsf{S}$ IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.678 OF 2023 (ARISING FROM HCCS NO.275 OF 2023) NABISERE JANE LETICIA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: $1^{ST}$ APPLICANT 10 ALEX WALUGEMBE ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: (ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE CHARLES KAYEMBA LWANGA) VERSUS

GERALD KASIGWA:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 15 COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION:::::::2<sup>ND</sup> RESPONDENT BEFORE HON LADY JUSTICE ELIZABETH JANE ALIVIDZA RULING

REPRESENTATION

The Applicants were represented by Kabega Bogezi & Bukenya 20 Advocates. The 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent was represented by Tulips Advocates and the $2^{nd}$ Respondent was unrepresented.

INTRODUCTION

The Applicants brought this Application under Section 64 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 22 rules 26 & 89(1) and Order 41 25 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking orders that;

a) Stay of execution of orders of court registered under SI KCCA 00011886 vide Miscellaneous Application No. 245613 and any registration of the $1<sup>st</sup>$ respondent as proprietor on land comprised in Kyadondo Block 33 Plot 712 at Mutundwe be stayed pending the hearing and disposal of the main suit.

- b) That any execution of any orders of court at the instance or initiation of the 1s respondent relating to Block 33 Plot 712 be stayed. - 35 - c) That status quo at the time of filing the main suit be maintained.

The grounds of this Application are contained in the chamber summons and alfidavit of the l"t Applicant

40 The Respondent filed an Affidavit in reply objecting to the Application.

RESOLUTION

Both parties filed submissions that I have taken into consideration in determining this Application.

45 The law Applicable when granting temporary injunctions is very clear and settled.

The Applicants are seeking stay of execution of orders of Court registered under SI KCCA-00011886 vide Misc. App No. 245613 and registration of the 1"t Respondent as proprietor on the suit land. That those orders be stayed pending the hearing and disposal

50 of the main suit.

> However, the Respondent in his aflidavit in reply avers that the status quo of the suit land changed having purchased the same from the 2"d Applicant and Elizabeth Nalukenge who at the time were registered on the suit land in their individual capacities. That

55 this transaction was carried out on the 17th October 2003 and as such the land had ceased to be part ofthe estate of the late Charles Kayemba Lwanga which is now administered by the Applicants.

)

It is my finding from the Affidavit evidence adduced that;

- 1. Although the suit land may form part of the estate of the late Charles Kayemba Lwanga, the administrators were registered on the suit land on the l7.lO.2OO3 and later the same day they were registered in their individual capacities and not as administrators of the estate. - 2. As per the sale agreement attached dated 9m December 2009 between the 1"t Respondent and Elizabeth Nalukenge and the 2"d Applicant, the 1"t Respondent purchased the suit land at UGX 60,000,000 and transfer forms were signed by the 2"4 Applicant and Elizabeth Nalukenge in favor of the 1"t respondent. - 3. From the certificate of title attached by the Applicants, the Applicants were registered on the suit land on the 15 / lO / 14. - 4. Applicants stated in submissions that on 09 l2/2O24, ll:,e Respondent was registered as owner of the suit land. - 75 It is my conclusion that this Application was overtaken by events given that the orders in Misc. App No. 55 of 2OO3 were stayed by the high Court vide MA No. 2456 of 2013, the Applicants did not set aside these orders, and as a result, the l"t Respondent was registered as proprietor of the suit land. Therefore, the status quo of the suit land changed. - 80 The only way forward is to have this suit resolved on merit as soon as possible.

Application dismissed. Each party bears their own costs.

/(

![](_page_3_Picture_0.jpeg)

Elizabeth Jane Alividza 85

Judge

$2/6/2025$

Ruling delivered on ECCMIS. 90

> Main suit 275 of 2025 is fixed for 16<sup>th</sup> October at 10.20 for fixing hearing date. Parties should be served accordingly.

Elizabeth Jane Alividza

${\bf Judge}$ 95

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 64 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 22 rules 26 & 89(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 41 Rule 1 and 2 of the 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.