Share
Nabumbaflorence Nalongo v Nabasirye Ruth Mayambala and Others (MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2023) [2025] UGHC 249 (30 April 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] UGHC 249
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Kazaarwe, J
- Case number
- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2023
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Kazaarwe, J
- Case number
- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2023
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the Temporary Injunction Order issued by the Deputy Registrar did not bestow ownership rights on third parties but merely maintained the status quo by allowing those already in possession of parts of the suit land to remain until the final disposal of the main suit. The court emphasized that the purpose of such an order is to preserve the status quo and not to determine ownership. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error in the Registrar's approach or any legal basis for setting aside the order. Consequently, the appeal was found to lack merit and was dismissed with costs in the cause.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed with costs in the cause
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs in the cause.
02
Material facts
Parties
Nabumba Florence Nalongo
ApplicantNabasirye Ruth Mayambala
RespondentWasswa Zulubaberi Wampamba Ssalongo
RespondentSsekyewa Rashid Khamis
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Appeal / Ruling on Appeal Against Temporary Injunction Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Temporary Injunction Order improperly included third parties not party to the suit.
- 02
Whether the Learned Deputy Registrar's order bestowed ownership rights on third parties.
- 03
Whether the appeal discloses grounds to set aside the Temporary Injunction Order.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the Temporary Injunction Order improperly included third parties who were not parties to the suit and that the order effectively bestowed ownership rights upon those third parties, which was beyond the court's mandate at the interlocutory stage.
- Respondent
- The respondents contended that the appeal was an abuse of court process, that the Temporary Injunction Order merely preserved the status quo as required by law, and that no ownership rights were conferred on third parties. They argued that the applicant failed to show any grounds for setting aside the order.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending the determination of the main suit.
- 02
General principles of interlocutory relief
A court order maintaining possession does not confer ownership rights.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the Temporary Injunction Order issued by the Deputy Registrar did not bestow ownership rights on third parties but merely maintained the status quo by allowing those already in possession of parts of the suit land to remain until the final disposal of the main suit. The court emphasized that the purpose of such an order is to preserve the status quo and not to determine ownership. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error in the Registrar's approach or any legal basis for setting aside the order. Consequently, the appeal was found to lack merit and was dismissed with costs in the cause.
Obiter and limits
- The inclusion of third parties in a status quo order does not amount to a determination of their legal rights over the property.
- Temporary injunctions are not instruments for conferring substantive rights but for preserving the subject matter of litigation.
Court disposition
appeal dismissed with costs in the cause
- The appeal is dismissed with costs in the cause.
Source and reliance status
High Court of 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.
High Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DIVISION)
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 181 OF 2023
(ARTSTNG FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 587 OF 2023)
10 NABUMBAFLORENCENALONGO-'------ -----------------aPPLtCANT
-VS.
- 1. NABASIRYE RUTH MAYAMBALA - 2. WASSWA ZULUBABERI WAMPAMBA SSALONGO - 3. SSEKYEWA RASHID KHAMIS--."--- RESPONDENTS
BEFORE: Hon. Lady Justice Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya.
RULING
This appeal lies against the Ruling of the Learned Deputy Registrar and is brought on grounds that in making her ruling, third parties on the suit land, who are not pariy to the suit were included in the Court's Temporary lnjunction Order. lt is the Appellant's contention that the Learned Registrar's ruling bestowed ownership rights upon the said 3'd parties.
ln reply, the Respondent contends that the appeal is an abuse of Court's process and does not satisfy the grounds to set aside the Temporary lniunction Order issued by the Learned Deputy Registrar.
<sup>I</sup>have perused the Temporary lnjunction Order issued by the Learned Deputy Registrar' The findings at page 10 of the ruling relating to the 3rd parties reads as follows;
llPree
- 5 "An order that the status quo remains as well on the rest of the plots included in the suit propefty and specificatty land comprised in Kyadondo Block 65 Plots 3044 in the names of the 1st Respondent and furlher that the third pafties already currently in possesslon of those plots, formerly betonging to the 1st Respondent continue ln possession but are only by this order restrained from setting, transfening or disposing of the plots they currently - 10 occupy until final disposal of the main suit "
under order 42 of the cPR governing Temporary lnjunctions the prime purpose of lnjunction Orders is to preserve the status quo.
I find that in agreement with the Respondent, I cannot fault the order of the Learned Deputy Registrar. I find that no ownership rights were bestowed on the 3'd parties. The
15 status quo was that they were in occupation of the part of the suit land and that is the Temporary lnjunction Order that maintained the status quo.
ln conclusion I find that this appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs in the cause.
<sup>L</sup> r
Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya JUDGE 30th April 2025
25 Delivered by Eccmis to Counsel for the Parties.
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.