Wakilii

Baligasiima v Kiiza & Ors (Miisc Application No. 1495 of 2016)

High Court · [2019] UGHCLD 17 · 2019 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from interlocutory injunction in underlying civil suit
Decision
Application for contempt granted; respondents found in contempt and ordered to restore status quo or pay fine.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 4 (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 4 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. 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

Held that introducing debris onto disputed land after a court order requiring parties to maintain the status quo constituted contempt of court. The respondents were ordered to remove the debris within seven days or pay a fine of 50 million shillings and allow the applicant to restore the status quo.

Outcome

Application for contempt granted; respondents found in contempt and ordered to restore status quo or pay fine.

Facts

The applicant, Bishop Patrick Baligasiima, and the respondents (trading as Abalema United Effort Limited) were parties to Civil Suit No. 279 of 2016 concerning disputed land. On 20 June 2016, the High Court issued a temporary injunction ordering both parties to continue occupying their respective portions without attempting to displace or evict the other pending final disposal of the case. After the order was issued, the respondents introduced debris/murram onto the disputed land, allegedly altering the status quo and blocking access to the applicant's church. The applicant filed a contempt application asserting that the respondents had violated the court order by introducing the debris and renting the parking space to a third party. The respondents denied contempt, arguing they were merely filling gullies caused by rain on their portion of the land and conducting normal renovation.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents are guilty of contempt of a court order.
  2. What remedies are available for proven contempt.

Orders

  • The respondent company is ordered to remove all the offensive debris introduced on the suit land and restore the status quo as it was at the time of the court order within 7 days from the date of this ruling.
  • If the respondent company does not comply within 7 days, the respondents will be liable to pay a fine of Shs. 50,000,000/= to the consolidated fund via the High Court Registrar.
  • If the respondents fail to comply, the applicant is granted an automatic order to remove the debris and restore the status quo to its original position.
  • Costs awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Status Quo — Alteration of Existing State
The primary purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter of litigation pending final determination. Status quo means the existing state of things prior to a particular point in time. Where a court order requires parties to maintain the status quo, introducing material changes to the disputed property constitutes contempt of court.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Joint Affidavits — Authority to Depone on Behalf of Others
An affidavit sworn on behalf of other persons without attaching written authority from those persons is inherently defective and incompetent. A deponent purporting to swear jointly on behalf of multiple parties must file evidence of their written authority on the court record.
Company Law — Lifting the Corporate Veil — Liability of Individual Members
Where mischief is traceable to the individual human members who comprise the legal entity of a company, the court may lift the corporate veil under section 328 of the Company Act to hold individual members liable for acts done in the name of the company.
Civil Procedure — Parties — Misjoinder and Substitution — Discretion of Court
No suit shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties. The court has discretion under Order 1 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules to substitute or add parties at any stage of proceedings where necessary to effectually adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved, provided it is in the interest of justice to do so.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Remedies — Specific Performance and Fines
Where contempt of court is established, the court may exercise its inherent powers under section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 14(2) of the Judicature Act to grant specific performance orders requiring compliance with the original order, impose fines payable to the consolidated fund, and award costs to the aggrieved party.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (11)

  • Binaisa Nakalema & 3 Others v Mucunguzi Myers (Misc Application No. 460 of 2013)
  • Taremwa Kamishana Tomas versus AG (supra)
  • Vicent Kafeero & 11 Others v Attorney General (Misc Application No. 048 of 2012)
  • Mukuye & 106 Others v Madhvani Group Ltd (Misc Application No. 0821 of 2013)
  • Makerere University v St. Mark Education Institute & Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 378 of 1993)
  • Daniel Mukyaya v Administrator General (High Court Civil Suit No. 630 of 1993)
  • Gapco v Muwanga Muhamed t/a Musa and Moses Services (High Court Civil Suit No. 84 of 1998)
  • Chuck versus Cremer (I Coop Tempt Cott 342) cited in the judgment of Romer L J in Hadkinson versus Hadkinson
  • Wildlife Lodge Ltd. versus County Council of Narok and Another (2005) EA 344
  • Megha Industries (U) Ltd versus Confom (U) Ltd
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Another v Commissioner General URA (Misc Application No. 0042 of 2010)

Cases citing this judgment (4)

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.

Baligasiima_v_Kiiza_&_Ors_(Miisc_Application_No._1495_of_2016)_[2019]_UGHCLD_17_(23_January_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.