Mugisha v Ssetimba and Ors (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 973 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 85 (23 July 2021)

Full Case Text

# **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

## **IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAMPALA**

### **[COMMERCIAL COURT]**

#### **M. A No. 973 of 2021**

## **(Arising from M. A No. 972 of 2021, M. A No.971 of 2021 and Civil Suit No.451 of 2021)**

**MUGISHA HELLEN RUCOGOZA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT**

**VERSUS**

**1. SSETIMBA ANDREW**

- **2. ALLAN MUGISHA NYIRIKINDI** - **3. COMICO INTERNATIONAL LTD** - **4. TROPICAL BANK LIMITED:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:RESPONDENTS**

### **BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE DUNCAN GASWAGA**

### **RULING**

- [1] This is an exparte application for a 'Certificate of Urgency' brought by the applicant under Section 98 CPA, Order 52 rules land 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules (SI 71-1) to hear the applicant's applications for interim order of an injunction and for a temporary injunction i.e **M. A No. 972 of 2021** and **M. A No. 971 of 2021.** The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant, Mugisha Hellen Rucogoza which expounds on the grounds relied on and are briefly as follows; - *1. That the applicant by virtue of being married to the 2nd respondent and the suit property being matrimonial property, the applicant is entitled to a share thereto and to consent and be informed about any transaction.*

- *2. That without the applicant's knowledge and consent, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents transferred the suit land to the 4th respondent and the same was agreed to in a memorandum of understanding that the applicant was not party to.* - *3. That the 2nd and 3rd respondents failed to fulfill the terms of the memorandum of understanding which has led to the suit land being put up for sale by public auction/private treaty.* - *4. That ifthe actions ofthe respondents are not stopped the applicant will sufferirreparable loss and the main suit will be rendered nugatory since they are in the process ofillegally annexing or appropriating the suit land to the applicant's detriment.* - *5. That it is in the interest ofjustice that a certificate of urgency be issued to enable court expeditiously stop the respondent's gross conduct in respect of the suit land.* - *[2]* According to rule 4 of the **Judicature (Court Vacation ) Rules SI 13-20.**

*"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 ofthe presidingjudge, be of an urgent nature.''*

**[3]** After diligently perusing the pleadings on record, I find that the application carries merit. I am convinced that these are fit and proper cases where an exception should be made for them to be heard during

this period of court vacation. If the application for temporary injunction is not heard now, yet the respondents have started and intend to carry through with the sale of the suit property as indicated in the New Vision newspaper, there is a high likelihood of injustice being occasioned to the applicant.

- **[4] Accordingly, the interests of justice dictate that a certificate of urgency as sought by the applicant be and is hereby granted pursuant to rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules S113- 20,** - [5] In the circumstances therefore, the Registrar of this court is hereby directed to fix the applications for interim order of injunction and for a temporary injunction, **M. A No. 972 of 2021** and **M. A No. 971 of 2021** respectively for hearing and also ensure that the applicants notify and serve the relevant Court process on the respondents. - [6] Costs of this application are to be provided for.

### **I so order.**

### **Dated, signed and delivered this 23rd day of July 2021**

**Duncan Gpswaga**

**JUDGE**