Wakilii

Amdhan Khan v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1027 of 2015)

High Court · [2015] UGHCLD 45 · 2015 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections in a miscellaneous application for contempt of court arising from Civil Suit No. 0359 of 2015
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; main application to proceed to hearing

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court held that applications for contempt of court take precedence over all other applications, including applications for stay of execution, irrespective of Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court that passed a decree retains jurisdiction to hear contempt applications arising from that decree, even where execution matters are pending before the Execution Division. A court is not functus officio in respect of contempt applications arising from its own decree, even where an appeal against that decree is pending, unless there is an automatic stay of execution.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; main application to proceed to hearing

Facts

The applicant filed a miscellaneous application arising from Civil Suit No. 0359 of 2015, seeking to cite the respondent bank for contempt of court. Prior to this application, an application for stay of execution had been filed on 26 October 2015. The instant contempt application was filed on 30 October 2015. The respondent raised three preliminary objections: first, that Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act barred the hearing because of the pending stay application; second, that the Land Division lacked jurisdiction because execution matters fall to the Execution Division; and third, that the court was functus officio because a decree had been extracted and an appeal filed to the Court of Appeal. The respondent also argued that the applicant had paid Shs.100 million towards purchase of suit property after the decree was passed.

Issues

  1. Whether the operation of Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act bars the court from hearing an application for contempt of court where there is already an application filed for a stay of execution in the original suit.
  2. Whether the Land Division has jurisdiction in a case in which it passed a decree that is before the Execution Division for an application for a stay of execution.
  3. Whether the court is functus officio in the application for contempt of court before it.

Orders

  • Preliminary objections overruled.
  • Costs of the preliminary objections awarded to the applicant.
  • Mr. Jonathan Were, Legal Advisor of the Respondent, summoned to attend court for cross-examination.
  • Application for contempt of court to proceed to hearing.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Priority over Other Proceedings
Applications for contempt of court take precedence over all other applications, including applications for stay of execution, irrespective of the provisions of Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and regardless of whether an appeal has been filed.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Court that Passed Decree
A court that passes a decree has the power to execute that decree and retains jurisdiction to hear applications arising from that decree, including contempt applications, even where execution matters have been referred to another division for administrative convenience.
Civil Procedure — Functus Officio — Scope of Doctrine
The functus officio rule prevents a court from revisiting or altering a judgment it has already pronounced, but does not bar the court from hearing applications arising out of that judgment, particularly applications for contempt of court orders.
Administrative Law — Court Administration — High Court Divisions
High Court divisions are created for administrative convenience and ease of management of court business and do not confer or oust jurisdiction, which remains vested in the High Court under Article 139 of the Constitution and Section 14 of the Judicature Act.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Effect of Pending Appeal
A pending appeal does not automatically bar the court of first instance from hearing matters arising from the original suit, including contempt applications, unless there is an automatic stay of execution in operation.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (4)

  • Goodman Agencies Ltd v Attorney General & Hassa Agencies K Ltd (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2008)
  • Magdeline Makinta vs. Fostina Nkwe, Court of Appeal No.26 of 1001
  • Adneste Monanyana vs. The State, Criminal appeal No.8 of 2001
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another v Edward Musisi (CAMA No. 158 of 2010)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Amdhan Khan v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1027 of 2015) [2015] UGHCLD 45 (1 December 2015)
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.