Wakilii

Bacumikire Fred v Mwesigye George, Busesire Geofrey & Innocent (Miscellaneous Application 338 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 5 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for committal for contempt of court arising from Civil Suit No. 17 of 2022
Decision
Respondents found in contempt and ordered to pay fine of UGX 10,000,000 within ten days, failing which imprisonment shall be imposed

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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 found the respondents in contempt of a restraining order issued on 26 July 2023. Evidence showed they had knowledge of the order yet intentionally breached it by planting maize on part of the suit land in October 2023. The court ordered the respondents to pay a fine of UGX 10,000,000 within ten days, failing which imprisonment would be imposed. Court orders must be obeyed unless set aside through lawful means such as review or appeal.

Outcome

Respondents found in contempt and ordered to pay fine of UGX 10,000,000 within ten days, failing which imprisonment shall be imposed

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 17 of 2022 claiming interest as registered owner of land comprised in Singo Block 127 LRV 2773 Folio No. 15. On 26 July 2023, the court issued an order restraining the respondents from carrying out any activity on the suit land. The respondents allegedly breached the order by cultivating the land and erecting a barbed wire fence. The Assistant Registrar conducted a locus inspection on 30 October 2023 and found that the respondents occupied most of the suit land. Some planting had been halted due to the court order, but the respondents had planted maize on another part of the land. The 1st respondent conceded to hiring a tractor to plough after the order was issued. The maize seen by the Registrar was one week old, indicating it was planted in October 2023 when the respondents had knowledge of the order.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents breached the court order issued on 26 July 2023 restraining activities on the suit land.
  2. Whether the respondents should be held in contempt of court.
  3. What orders and sanctions are appropriate for the contempt.

Orders

  • The respondents are held in contempt of the court order issued on 26 July 2023.
  • The respondents shall jointly deposit in court a fine of Uganda Shillings 10,000,000 within ten days from the date of this ruling.
  • Failure to pay the fine shall result in a term of imprisonment being imposed on the respondents.
  • The Registrar is directed to post the ruling on the respective counsel's addresses.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements to Establish Civil Contempt
To establish civil contempt, an applicant must prove: (i) the existence of a lawful order; (ii) the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order; (iii) the contemnor's ability to comply with the order; and (iv) the potential contemnor's failure to comply with the order.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Specificity of Order
The order alleged to have been breached must state clearly and unequivocally what should or should not be done, the party alleged to have breached the order must have had actual knowledge of it, and the party must have intentionally done the prohibited act or failed to do the compelled act.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Obligation to Obey Court Orders
No party who knows of a court order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, can be permitted to disobey it as long as it exists. Court orders must be complied with in totality unless set aside on review, revision, or appeal.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Discretion and Restraint
Even where an applicant satisfies all elements required to prove civil contempt, the court retains discretion to decline a finding of contempt where the alleged contemnor shows he acted in good faith and was taking reasonable steps towards compliance. Contempt is a remedy of last resort and should be used with great restraint.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 2 of 2012)
  • Carey v Laiken [2015] SCC 17
  • Betty Kizito v Dickson Nsubuga and 6 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 25 and 26 of 2021)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 569
  • Republic v County Chief Finance Officer (Ex parte David Mugo Mwangi) [2008] KLR
  • Housing Finance Bank v Speedway Auctioneers (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bacumikire Fred v Mwesigye George, Busesire Geofrey & Innocent (Miscellaneous Application 338 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 5 (9 January 2024)
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.