Wakilii

Buildnet Construction Materials & Hardware v Sewandigi Kikomeko Ssemberege & 3 Ors (Misc. Application No. 83 of 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCLD 31 · 2019 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for contempt of court order arising from civil suit for specific performance of contract
Decision
Application for contempt dismissed; temporary injunction and caveat both maintained pending determination of the main suit

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 respondents were not in contempt of the temporary injunction. The caveat application process was initiated on 9 July 2018 and the instrument was entered on the certificate of title on 27 July 2018 at 9:26 am, the same day the temporary injunction was issued. The court found that the registration process commenced before the court order existed. For contempt to be established, there must be existence of a lawful order, the contemnor's knowledge of that order, and disobedience. The respondents could not be held in contempt of an order that did not exist when they began the caveat process.

Outcome

Application for contempt dismissed; temporary injunction and caveat both maintained pending determination of the main suit

Facts

The applicant company was the registered proprietor of land in Kyadondo Block 214 Plot 157 at Kisasi, having obtained title after signing transfer instruments with the respondents. The applicant sued the respondents for specific performance of contract in Civil Suit No. 552 of 2018. A temporary injunction was issued on 27 July 2018 restraining the respondents from further acts of breach of contract and from alienating the suit land. The first respondent had submitted a caveat application to the Land Registry on 9 July 2018, which was entered as an instrument on the certificate of title on 27 July 2018 at 9:26 am. The applicant brought this application seeking to have the respondents sanctioned for contempt, the caveat vacated, and exemplary damages and penalties totaling UGX 575,000,000. The respondents contended that the caveat process was initiated before the court order existed and that once initiated, the registration process at the Land Registry was beyond their control.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents are in contempt of any Court order.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The orders in the temporary injunction vide Misc. Application No. 1137 of 2018 are hereby extended until the disposal of the main suit.
  • The caveat lodged by the Respondents is maintained pending determination of Civil Suit No. 552 of 2018.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements of Civil Contempt
For a party to be held in contempt of a court order, three essential elements must be established: existence of a lawful order, the potential contemnor's knowledge of that order, and the potential contemnor's failure to comply with the order.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Timing and Knowledge
A party cannot be held in contempt of a court order that was not in existence at the time the allegedly contemptuous act was initiated, even if the order was issued on the same day that the act was completed.
Land & Property — Land Registration — Caveat Process and Timing
The registration of instruments in the Land Registry is a gradual process that takes place over multiple stages and is not a one-day or one-minute activity. Where a caveat application is submitted before a court order is issued, the subsequent entry of that caveat on the certificate of title does not constitute contempt of the later-issued order, as the registration process commenced before the order existed.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Status Quo
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to maintain the status quo on the suit property as at the date of delivery of the ruling, with status quo defined as the actual state of affairs on the suit premises prior to the filing of the suit.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (7)

  • Male H. Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Supreme Court Misc. Application No. 1 of 2018)
  • Dr. Kizza Besigye v Y.K Museveni (Election Petition No. 1 of 2006)
  • Wildlife Lodges Ltd v County Council of Narok and Another (2005) 2 EA 344
  • Confirm Uganda Ltd v Megha Industries (U) (Misc. Application No. 1084 of 2014)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Jacob Power Plant Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Misc. Application No. 24 of 2010)
  • Megha Industries (U) versus Conform Uganda Ltd
  • Viola Ojok and Another v Andrew Ojok and Another (Misc. Application No. 179 of 2007)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Buildnet_Construction_Materials_&_Hardware_Vs_Sewandigi_Kikomeko_Ssemberege_&_3_Ors_(Misc._Application_No._83_of_2019)_[2019]_UGHCLD_31_(29_May_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.