Registered Ownership Alone Is Insufficient for Injunctive Relief: High Court at Luwero Dismisses Applications in the Face of Demonstrated Equitable Interests and Actual Possession

Waboga David
Dec 8, 2025
4 min read

FACTS

The Applicant, the registered proprietor of two parcels of land (Bulemezi Block 567 Plot 45 and Kyadondo Block 266 Plots 1122, 1123 & 1205 at Seguku), filed consolidated applications seeking an interim and temporary injunction against the Respondent.

She sought to restrain the Respondent, Nangonzi Racheal Remmy, whom she labelled a trespasser, alleging acts of waste, such as burning and charcoal activities, and interference with farm operations. The relief sought was a temporary injunction.

The Respondent’s defence, however, transformed the issue from a simple trespass claim into a complex equitable dispute. She did not deny the Applicant’s formal title but asserted that her possession was consensual and lawful, stemming from a long-standing working relationship.

The Respondent claimed responsibility for identifying the land, settling squatters, supervising development, and, most significantly, being a joint obligor on a EUR 80,000 development loan secured by the very land in dispute. These averments introduced substantial and serious triable issues regarding the nature and extent of her equitable interest in the property.

The Respondent contested the territorial jurisdiction of the Luwero High Court over the Seguku land (Kyadondo Block 266), which falls under the Wakiso Circuit.

The Respondent maintained that her possession was consensual and lawful, arising from a close working relationship with the Applicant

She identified the Bulemezi land for purchase and conducted due diligence

She negotiated with and settled five squatters

She fenced the land and supervised developments

She managed the farm during the Applicant's extended stay abroad

She and the Applicant jointly obtained a EUR 80,000 loan for land development, for which she remains liable as co-borrower

The Applicant diverted part of the loan proceeds for personal use

She retained the Certificate of Title in good faith to safeguard their mutual interest

All allegations of burning and destruction were fabricated and illogical given her financial exposure

The Applicant attempted to alter the status quo by deploying private security guards

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The Court framed five issues:

Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the applications
Whether there is a prima facie case with a high probability of success
Whether irreparable injury exists that cannot be adequately atoned for by damages
Whether there is an imminent threat to the suit property
Where the balance of convenience lies

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant, Counsel Robert Lubega of M/S Lunar Advocates

For the Respondent, Counsel Mary Twesigomwe of M/S TMBei Advocates

SUBMISSIONS

Applicant's Submissions

Counsel for the Applicant argued that the Applicant's status as registered proprietor confers superior legal rights

The Respondent is a trespasser with no legal or equitable interest

Continued occupation poses risk of waste, destruction, and interference

A prima facie case exists based on registered ownership

Irreparable harm will result from continued trespass and destruction

Balance of convenience favors protecting the registered owner's rights

Relied on Giella v Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358, arguing she demonstrated:
- Prima facie case
- Irreparable harm
- Favourable balance of convenience

Respondent's Submissions

Counsel for the Respondent contended that the Respondent's possession was consensual and lawful

Substantial equitable interests exist arising from contributions and joint financial obligations

Trespass allegations should not be adjudicated at the interlocutory stage

No irreparable injury has been demonstrated; the alleged losses are economic and quantifiable

No imminent threat exists; allegations are speculative and fabricated

Balance of convenience favors maintaining the status quo (Respondent's possession)

The Court lacks territorial jurisdiction over the Seguku properties

COURT’S FINDINGS

On Jurisdiction

The Court found that Kyadondo Block 266 lies outside the territorial limits of the Luwero Circuit.

“I find it strange for counsel for the applicant to file a suit in respect of land that falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court.”

While the High Court has unlimited jurisdiction, Circuits must respect administrative boundaries.

Held:

This Court has jurisdiction only over the Bulemezi land, not the Seguku land.

Injunctive relief cannot be issued regarding Seguku.

On A Prima Facie Case

The Applicant, as registered proprietor, has a prima facie claim.

However, the Respondent presented serious countervailing issues:

Consensual possession
Substantial development contributions
Joint financial obligations (EUR 80,000 loan)
Possible equitable interest

The Court held:

“These issues cannot be resolved through affidavit evidence alone… They therefore constitute serious triable questions.”

A prima facie case exists, but not exclusively in favour of the Applicant.

The Respondent also has substantial triable rights.

On Irreparable Injury

The Court held that alleged injuries (crop loss, farm interference, income disruption) were economic and quantifiable, therefore compensable in damages.

“Economic loss, however inconvenient or undesirable, does not constitute irreparable harm.”

No independent evidence (photos, reports, third-party affidavits) supported the claims of burning or waste.

Certificate of Title was already secured by the Court, meaning subject matter was preserved.

No irreparable injury demonstrated.

On Imminent Threat

An imminent threat must be real, visible, and immediate, not speculative.

The Applicant’s fears were found to be unsubstantiated and speculative.

The Court found no imminent threat proven.

Balance of Convenience

The Respondent is in possession and has long-standing involvement in development.

The Applicant attempted to alter status quo by deploying private guards.

The Court leaned toward maintaining existing possession until trial.

HOLDING

The Court DISMISSED both applications with costs to the Applicant holding as follows;

The court has jurisdiction only over Bulemezi land.

No orders to be issued concerning Seguku lands.

Applicant failed to prove irreparable injury or imminent threat.

Balance of convenience favoured maintaining the Respondent’s possession.

Title for Bulemezi remains in Court custody.

The applications were effectively dismissed, with each issue reserved for full trial.

7. KEY TAKEAWAYS

✔️ 1. Registered title alone may not guarantee injunctive relief

Where credible evidence of equitable interests, joint financial obligations, or consensual possession exists, the Court will not automatically favour the registered proprietor.

✔️ 2. Territorial jurisdiction is strict for land matters

Applications concerning land outside a Circuit’s geographical limits may be rejected, even if the High Court has unlimited jurisdiction.

✔️ 3. Injunctions require proof beyond allegations

Claims of trespass, burning, and waste must be supported with independent evidence, not speculative assertions.

✔️ 4. Economic loss is not irreparable harm

Damages relating to farming, crops, and income-generating activities are quantifiable, and thus not a basis for injunctions.

✔️ 5. Long-standing possession matters

Where the Respondent is the one in possession, and the applicant attempts to alter the status quo, courts typically preserve existing control until trial.