Wakilii

Bagobedde v Kabaseka & 2 Ors (Misc. Application No. 0450 of 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCLD 54 · 2019 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from alleged breach of temporary injunction in Civil Suit No. 67 of 2018
Decision
Matter referred to police for investigation to establish who breached the temporary injunction order; respondents must cooperate and satisfy the court of non-liability

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 High Court found that on the balance of probability the applicant failed to prove that the respondents carried out construction in breach of the temporary injunction order. The evidence (photographs) did not establish who was responsible for the alleged construction. The court ordered the applicant to submit the evidence to police for independent criminal investigation to establish responsibility, and directed the respondents to cooperate. The application partly succeeded with costs to abide the main suit.

Outcome

Matter referred to police for investigation to establish who breached the temporary injunction order; respondents must cooperate and satisfy the court of non-liability

Facts

The applicant was the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 67 of 2018 concerning land. On 25th January 2019, the court issued a temporary injunction ordering that no further construction should occur on the suit land by the parties or their agents. The applicant alleged that despite the injunction, the respondents continued constructing on the suit land, and produced photographs dated after the injunction order showing buildings under construction. The 2nd respondent denied the allegation, stating they had complied with the order and that the buildings in the photographs did not belong to them. The applicant's witness averred that he visited the land on 23rd February 2019 and saw ongoing construction contrary to the court directive. The respondents maintained that the photographs did not show the actual suit property and that they were not responsible for any construction.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents are in contempt of the Court order dated 25th January 2019.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application partly succeeds.
  • Applicant ordered to submit information and exhibits (photographs) to OC Police High Court for independent criminal inquiry to establish who is responsible for the alleged construction.
  • Respondents ordered to cooperate with the police investigation.
  • Respondents ordered to satisfy the Court that they are not criminally liable for the alleged construction.
  • If respondents fail to cooperate and a negative report is filed by the investigating officer, the matter shall be revisited to sanction the party found at fault.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements Required to Establish — Burden of Proof
To establish contempt of a court order, three conditions must be proved: existence of a lawful order, the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order, and the potential contemnor's failure to comply or disobedience of the lawful order.
Contempt of Court — Standard of Proof — Balance of Probabilities
Where a respondent denies responsibility for alleged contempt and evidence consists of competing assertions without independent verification, the applicant must prove on the balance of probability that the respondent carried out the prohibited act; mere photographic evidence without proof of attribution does not satisfy this burden.
Contempt of Court — Court's Inherent Powers — Section 98 Civil Procedure Act
Where evidence in a contempt application is inconclusive as to responsibility for breach of a court order, the court may exercise its unlimited jurisdiction under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act to order an independent police investigation to establish criminal liability and ensure the ends of justice are met.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Sendege Senyondo & Co. Advocates v Bank Secretary Bank of Uganda and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2018)
  • Wildlife Lodges Ltd v County Council of Narok and Another (2005) 2 EA 344
  • Confirm Uganda Ltd v Megha Industries (U) (Miscellaneous Application No. 1084 of 2014)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Jacob Power Plant Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2010)
  • Megha Industries (U) versus Conform Uganda Ltd (Supra)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bagobedde_Vs_Kabaseka_&_2_Ors_(Misc._Application_No._0450_of_2019)_[2019]_UGHCLD_54_(30_August_2019)
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.