Wakilii

Banadda & Another v Nalubowa (Miscellaneous Application 2297 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 287 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from an alleged breach of a temporary injunction order in a pending civil suit
Decision
Application for contempt dismissed; applicants failed to prove respondent personally committed acts alleged to be in breach of temporary injunction order

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

Held that the applicants failed to prove contempt of court. For contempt to be established, three elements must be satisfied: existence of a lawful order, knowledge of the order by the potential contemnor, and disobedience of the order. Although a temporary injunction maintaining the status quo existed and the respondent had knowledge of it, the applicants did not prove with sufficient evidence that the respondent personally committed the alleged acts of structural changes and blocking passages. The court conducted a locus and observed that the respondent's shop remained intact and that the alleged contraventions were committed by third parties not before the court. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for contempt dismissed; applicants failed to prove respondent personally committed acts alleged to be in breach of temporary injunction order

Facts

The applicants applied for a contempt order against the respondent, alleging she violated a temporary injunction issued on 22 April 2022 (in Misc. Application 293 of 2022) maintaining the status quo of suit land comprised in Busiro Block 33 Plot 17 at Kyengera. The applicants claimed that around March and April 2024, the respondent made structural changes including constructing an extension to her business premises, building a wall blocking a passage, and demolishing structures. The respondent denied the allegations, stating she made no structural changes and that any alterations were done by third parties. She explained that local council directives required traders to pave front yards and face-lift structures, which led to leveling of the front yard with marram. The court conducted a locus visit on 13 November 2024 and observed that the respondent's shop remained intact as at the time the injunction was issued. The court found that structures allegedly extended were occupied by persons not party to the proceedings and that the respondent was not operating from the blocked area.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent is in contempt of court orders issued in Miscellaneous Application No. 293 of 2022?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements Required for Proof
Before any action can be found to amount to contempt of court, three principles must be established: existence of a lawful order, potential contemnor's knowledge of the order, and potential contemnor's failure to comply with the order (that is, disobedience of the order).
Contempt of Court — Burden of Proof — Particularity Required
Civil contempt is a strict liability violation. The applicant must state exactly what the alleged contemnor has done or omitted to do which constitutes contempt of court with sufficient particularity to enable the respondent to meet the accusation. There must be sufficient evidence to show that the contemnor's acts constitute contempt and that it should be made clear that the respondent is alleged to have done the said acts that constitute willful breach of the order.
Contempt of Court — Personal Responsibility — Acts of Third Parties
A party cannot be held in contempt for acts committed by third parties not under their control. Where structural changes to suit property are made by persons other than the respondent and not at the respondent's direction, contempt cannot be established against the respondent regardless of knowledge of the injunction order.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (5)

  • Uganda Super League v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 73 of 2013)
  • Andre Paul Terence Ambar v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 322
  • Hadkinson vs Hadkinson (supra)
  • Church v Cremer (1 Coop Temp Cott 342)
  • Odoi Odome v Uganda Electricity Generation Company (Miscellaneous Application No. 1088 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Banadda_&_Another_v_Nalubowa_(Miscellaneous_Application_2297_of_2024)_[2024]_UGHCLD_287_(29_November_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.