Kalule v Yowhanis and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1571 of 2025) [2025] UGHCLD 139 (17 July 2025)

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DIVISION) **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1571 OF 2025** ARISING FROM MISC. APPLICATION 1342 OF 2025 AND 1343 OF 2025 ARISING OUT OF CIVIL SUIT 1537 OF 2025

KALULE HENRY LUCKY ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

#### **VERSUS**

**JOHN YOWHANIS T/A LA Villa Guest House and Restaurant** 2. NANSEERA UZAIRU SESSIMBA 3. MAUN INVESTMENT LIMITED **....................................**

## BEFORE LADY JUSTICE CHRISTINE KAAHWA

### RULING.

This Application was brought under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282, Section 37 of the Judicature Act, Cap 16, Rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules, Order 52 rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking for Orders that:

$1/101$ Pers

$\mathbf{1}$

- 1. A certificate of urgency be granted to the Applicant to enable the Applicant proceed with the hearing of the applications for injunctive reliefs vide Misc. Applications 1342 and 1342 of 2025. - 2. That the Registrar be allowed by the court to proceed with an already scheduled locus visit on the $29^{th}$ July 2025. - 3. Costs of the Application be provided for.

The Application is supported by an Affidavit deposed by Applicant and he avers that the application for interim Orders and the Temporary Injunction was consolidated and heard on the 1<sup>st</sup> July 2025. In paragraph 9 of the said affidavit it is disposed that the Registrar adjourned the locus visit to the 29<sup>th</sup> July 2025. However since the 29<sup>th</sup> day of July is within the period the court is on vacation, hence this application.

## **Representation and hearing.**

During the hearing, the Applicant was represented by Sage Advocates who filed written submissions which the Court has considered in reaching its decision.

### Issue arising.

Whether the application discloses sufficient reason for grant of a certificate of urgency.

#### **Resolution of the issue.**

In order for the court to grant certificate of urgency it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that a matter requires immediate attention and cannot wait for the standard legal procedure. This nature of application it is incumbent upon the

15/10712025

applicant to provide evidence which will persuade the court to exercise its discretion and fast track a matter.

Rule 4 of the **Judicature (Court Vacation ) Rules SI 13-20** stipulates that;

"In vacation the court shall deal with criminal business but shall not sit for the discharge of civil business other than such civil business as shall, in the opinion of *the presiding judge, be of an urgent nature."*

What I garner from the Rule 4, as cited above, is that there is a general prohibition for the courts to hear civil matters unless the court certifies that the civil matter is urgent.

In this case, the applications for temporary and interim injunctive orders were heard and the Registrar had given the 29<sup>th</sup> July 2025 for visiting the Locus quo. It is pertinent that the certified copy of the proceedings of the Registrar were not annexed as part of the record.

Section 101 and 103 of the Evidence Act, Cap 8 places the burden on the person who alleges to prove. Notable to say, this being an exparte application this burden does not shift. Therefore, the Applicant squarely shoulders the burden to prove or demonstrate the urgency of the matter so that the court may handle matters that the Rules prohibit. In this application without the record of proceedings it is not tell with certainty that the matter had been so scheduled. The letters to the Local authority was not presented to the court which would in my view, would have anchored the application.

The Rules as cited above the application must demonstrate urgency which would be perceived by destruction, loss or decimation of the suit property among others.

15/107/2025

$\overline{3}$

In this application the sole reason advanced is that the court had set this date. It is erroneous for the court to give this kind of dates and hope that the Judge would then grant the certificate of urgency.

Counsel for the Applicant submitted orally that all the parties had agreed that the construction on the suit property stop. He also submitted that the status on the ground is that the Respondents were constructing on the suit property.

This application cannot be used to cure an error by commission or omission made by the court, as the Applicant alleges that a date was set down by the Registrar. I find that the Applicant has not demonstrated the urgency of the matter and I decline to grant this application.

Dated at Kampala this 17<sup>th</sup> day of July 2025.

$\overbrace{\qquad \qquad }$ $\vert$

**Christine Kaahwa** JUDGE.