Wakilii

Jingo Mukasa v Rwaguma (Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2015)

Court of Appeal · [2021] UGCA 51 · 2021 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court judgment, with a preliminary question of contempt of court raised against the appellant
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs on account of the appellant's civil contempt of court

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 16 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that an appellate court may entertain a contempt of court allegation even where the trial court is functus officio, because the penal or disciplinary dimension of civil contempt may be exercised in the public interest. The appellant, despite knowledge of the trial court's orders and the pending appeal, sub-divided, sold and transferred part of the disputed land to a third party, thereby removing the subject matter of the appeal from the Court's reach. Applying the principle that a contemnor who impedes the course of justice will not be heard until the contempt is purged, and that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands, the Court found civil contempt established and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Facts

The respondent, administrator of the late Dr. B. E. Rwaguma's estate, sued the appellant, administrator of the late Yowana Mukasa's estate, seeking cancellation of the certificate of title to land at Plot 31 Block 543, Mengo, Busiro, claiming bona fide occupancy since 1959. The High Court declared the respondent owner by adverse possession and bona fide occupancy and ordered cancellation and transfer of the title. The appellant appealed. While the appeal was pending, and despite knowledge of the trial court's June 2015 orders and the pending appeal lodged in October 2015, the appellant applied to transfer plots curved out of the suit land (508, 509 and 510) to B. K. Wava Property Consultants Ltd, which were valued and registered, the transfer being lodged for registration on 1 November 2018. A sale agreement was also dated 5 July 2012. The respondent raised the appellant's disobedience of the trial court's orders by way of a supplementary record, prompting the Court to direct the parties to address the question of contempt of court.

Issues

  1. Whether the contempt of court allegation against the appellant could properly be raised before the appellate court rather than the trial court.
  2. Whether the appellant was in civil contempt of court by sub-dividing, selling and transferring the disputed land while the appeal was pending.
  3. Whether an appellant adjudged to be in contempt of court should be heard on his appeal before purging the contempt.

Orders

  • Submissions filed out of time accommodated; time for filing submissions extended.
  • The supplementary record treated as documentary evidence of the contempt allegation.
  • Civil contempt found established against the appellant.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Jurisdiction of Appellate Court — Penal Dimension Exercisable in Public Interest
While the dimension of civil contempt concerning enforcement between parties may be addressed by the court whose orders were flouted, the penal or disciplinary dimension exercisable in the public interest is not restricted to the trial court and may be exercised by an appellate court, even where the trial court is functus officio.
Contempt of Court — Disobedience of Court Order Pending Appeal — Disposal of Subject Matter
A litigant whose right to deal with property has been impeached by a court order is legally obliged to halt dealings in that property until the right is restored on appeal; disposing of the subject matter of a pending appeal in violation of court orders constitutes civil contempt of court.
Contempt of Court — Right to be Heard — Refusal to Hear Contemnor Pending Purge of Contempt
A court may, in its discretion, refuse to hear a party in civil contempt whose disobedience impedes the course of justice until the contempt is purged; where the contemnor has removed the subject matter of the appeal from the court's reach and no other effective coercive sanction is available, dismissal of the appeal is justified.
Equity — Clean Hands Maxim — Abuse of Court Process
It is contrary to the principles of justice and the equitable maxim that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands for a court to extend judicial assistance to one who has flouted its orders and abused the court process.
Time Limits — Late Filing of Submissions — Court's Unfettered Discretion to Extend Time
A court has unfettered discretion under its rules of procedure to extend, for sufficient reason, the time for filing submissions or other documents, and non-adherence to court directions is assessed on a case-by-case basis having regard to the circumstances of each case.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.5
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.87(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.90(1)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.90(3)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.90(4)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.90(5)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules r.100
  • Registration of Titles Act s.92
  • Constitution of Uganda art.28(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.44(c)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.126(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.134

Cases cited (18)

  • Active Automobile Spare Ltd v. Crane Bank ltd & Another (2009) 1 EA 1
  • Scott v. Brown Doering-MC No. 1 & Co. (1892) 2 QD 724 at 728
  • Jennison v. Baker (1972) 1 All ER 997 at 1001, 1002
  • Morris v. Rabbara, 145 SO. 2d 265, 267
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Goyal v Goyal & Others (Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2004)
  • Geoffrey Odongo & Others v. Francis Atoke, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2045
  • Attorney General v Uganda Law Society (Constitutional Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Bhatia v. Crane Bank (2014) 1 EA 154 (Uganda Court of Appeal)
  • R vs. Horseferry Road Magistrates Ex Parte Bennet (1994) 1 AC 42
  • Besigye & Others v. Attorney General (2010) 2 EA 65 at 89
  • El Kaderbhai & Another v Shamsherali M. Zaver Virji & Others (Civil Application No. 20 of 2008)
  • Boney M. Katatumba v Waheed Karim (Civil Application No. 27 of 2007)
  • Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni & Others (Civil Application No. 4 of 2021)
  • Raymond Ayebazibwe v Barclays Bank Uganda Limited & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 283 of 2012)
  • Hadkinson v. Hadkinson (1952) 2 All ER 567
  • National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Arnold 348 U.S. 37 (1954)
  • X Ltd v. Morgan-Grampian Ltd (1991) 1 AC 1
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.