Wakilii

Bisaso v Tumuhirwe (Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 213 · 2023 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of Assistant Registrar striking off affidavit in reply and granting contempt application
Decision
Appeal struck out as time-barred

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 held that under the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019, Registrars have jurisdiction to enforce their own interlocutory orders through contempt proceedings where the court is not functus officio. However, the appeal was struck out as time-barred, having been filed twelve days after the impugned decision instead of within the seven-day statutory period, and no leave to appeal out of time had been sought.

Outcome

Appeal struck out as time-barred

Facts

The respondent Tumuhirwe instituted a land suit against Bisaso and another, seeking declarations of ownership over land at Buso-Namulonge. She obtained consent orders for temporary and interim injunctions restraining the defendants from opening new gardens on the suit land. Subsequently, she filed a contempt application alleging Bisaso violated the consent orders. The Assistant Registrar struck off Bisaso's affidavit in reply as filed out of time without leave, treated the contempt application as uncontested, and ordered Bisaso to pay UGX 5,000,000 as damages, UGX 5,000,000 as a fine for contempt, and costs. Bisaso appealed twelve days after the decision, challenging the Registrar's jurisdiction and the striking off of his affidavit.

Issues

  1. Whether the Assistant Registrar had jurisdiction to entertain contempt proceedings arising from interlocutory orders made by a Registrar.
  2. Whether the appeal was filed within the statutory time limit prescribed by Section 79(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • Appeal struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction of Registrars — Contempt Proceedings — Power to Enforce Own Orders
Under the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019, Registrars have jurisdiction to entertain contempt proceedings arising from their own interlocutory orders, including injunctions granted under Order XLI, where the court is not functus officio and retains power to vary or set aside those orders.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Time Limits — Section 79(1)(b) Civil Procedure Act
An appeal from a decision of a Registrar must be filed within seven days of the date of the order appealed against, and where no application for leave to appeal out of time is made prior to filing, the appeal is incompetent and must be struck out as time-barred.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Illegality — Makula Principle
Where an illegality manifests in proceedings, it supersedes all other matters including pleadings and time limitations, and a court cannot stand by and sanction what is illegal regardless of the stage at which the illegality is brought to the court's attention.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Enforcement of Orders — Functus Officio
Ordinarily a court should enforce its own orders even if it means trying someone for contempt of those orders, provided the court is not functus officio and retains jurisdiction over the matter from which the contempt proceedings arise.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bisaso_v_Tumuhirwe_(Miscellaneous_Application_8_of_2021)_[2023]_UGHCLD_213_(25_July_2023)
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.