Wakilii

G.J. Lutaya v H.G. Gandesha and Another (Civil Application 2 of 1989)

Supreme Court · [1989] UGSC 14 · 1989 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to commit the respondents to civil prison for contempt of court
Decision
Application for committal for contempt dismissed with costs

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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 held that although the respondents' conduct in obtaining an ex parte execution order and evicting the applicant prima facie amounted to contempt of the Court of Appeal's stay of execution, committal for contempt requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of a guilty mind amounting to wilful or contumacious disobedience. The respondents honestly and not unreasonably believed the appeal had been deemed withdrawn under Rule 82(a) and that no enforceable order existed, particularly as no formal order had been extracted under Rule 34(2). The applicant failed to discharge that burden, so the application was dismissed with costs.

Facts

On 8 August 1984 the High Court gave judgment against the applicant in HCCS No. 860 of 1982. The applicant filed a notice of appeal and, on 3 June 1985, obtained from the Court of Appeal a ruling staying execution of the judgment and decree pending the appeal. The parties could not agree on the form of that order, and no formal order was extracted under Rule 34(2) of the Supreme Court Rules; the judge before whom the matter came did not settle the form. The applicant also failed to lodge his appeal within sixty days of his notice of appeal and obtained no Registrar's certificate excluding time. Believing the appeal deemed withdrawn under Rule 82(a) and that no enforceable order existed, the respondents on 8 July 1986 obtained an ex parte execution order from the Ag. Chief Registrar of the High Court, evicted the applicant from the suit premises and took possession of his property. The applicant sought to commit the respondents to civil prison for contempt of the stay order.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents were guilty of contempt of court and liable to committal to civil prison for obtaining an execution order and evicting the applicant in alleged disobedience of the Court of Appeal's order staying execution.
  2. Whether a formal order of stay had been extracted under Rule 34(2) of the Supreme Court Rules so that there was an ascertainable order capable of being obeyed.
  3. Whether the contempt alleged was proved to the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt, including the requisite wilful or contumacious intent.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Standard of Proof — Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Contempt of court punishable by imprisonment must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the alleged contemnor must be shown to have had a guilty mind, namely wilful or contumacious disobedience.
Contempt of Court — Disobedience of Order — Order Valid Until Set Aside
An order of a court of unlimited jurisdiction must be obeyed by the person against whom it is made unless and until it is set aside; a party cannot unilaterally treat such an order, or an appeal, as spent or withdrawn.
Contempt of Court — Requirement of a Clear and Unambiguous Order
Before a court will punish a party for contempt for failing to carry out its order, the order alleged to have been disobeyed must be expressed in clear and unambiguous terms.
Practice — Extraction and Settlement of Orders — Rule 34(2) Supreme Court Rules
Where the parties fail to agree on the form of an order, it is the presiding judge, and not the Registrar, who must settle the form of the order under Rule 34(2)(c); absent an extracted order there may be no ascertainable order capable of being obeyed.
Contempt of Court — Honest and Reasonable Mistaken Belief Negatives Wilfulness
Where a party honestly and not unreasonably believes that no enforceable order exists, the wilful or contumacious intent required for committal for contempt is absent and imprisonment is not warranted.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Supreme Court Rules r.81(1)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.74(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.34(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules r.82(a)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.46 r.8

Cases cited (5)

  • Isaacs v Robertson [1984] 3 W.L.R. 705
  • Iberian Trust Ltd v Founders Trust & Investment Ltd [1932] 2 K.B. 87
  • In re F (orse A) (A Minor) (Publication of Information) [1977] 3 W.L.R. 705
  • In re F (Publication) [1976] 3 W.L.R. 813
  • Shoppee v Nathan & Co [1892] 1 Q.B. 245
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.