Wakilii

Don Dino Institute for Orphan Care Limited v Rev Fr. Casto and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 88 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 64 of 2019 (temporary injunction) and Civil Suit No. 21 of 2019
Decision
Application partly allowed. Respondents 1–6 found in contempt but not committed to prison. Declaratory orders issued restraining further interference with property management and further withdrawals for development pending final disposal of 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

The High Court held that respondents 1–6 were in contempt of court for violating a temporary injunction that ordered maintenance of the status quo on suit property. The respondents, as agents of the Registered Trustees of Arua Diocese, had knowledge of the order but proceeded to change signatories to school bank accounts, withdraw funds, and construct a building on the suit land. The 8th respondent (KCB Bank) was not held in contempt as it had not been served with the order. The court declined to order arrest or demolition but issued a declaratory order restraining further interference with property management and further withdrawals for development pending final disposal of the main suit.

Outcome

Application partly allowed. Respondents 1–6 found in contempt but not committed to prison. Declaratory orders issued restraining further interference with property management and further withdrawals for development pending final disposal of main suit.

Facts

The applicant, Don Dino Institute for Orphan Care Limited, filed Civil Suit No. 21 of 2019 against the Registered Trustees of Arua Diocese for trespass and sought a permanent injunction. The applicant also filed Miscellaneous Application No. 64 of 2019 for a temporary injunction to restrain the Diocese from interfering with management of St. Kizito Ediofe Orphan Primary School, St. Assumpta Health Centre III, and Don Dino Orphanage. On 21 October 2019, the court ordered maintenance of the status quo. Despite this order, on 24 October 2019, respondents 1–5 held a meeting and replaced the school's signatory, Mr. Geria Victory, with the 5th respondent. The respondents then withdrew over UGX 188,234,247 from the school's bank accounts at Centenary Bank and KCB Bank and used the funds to construct a new building on the suit land. The applicant brought this contempt application seeking arrest and committal of respondents 1–5, demolition of the building, refund of withdrawn monies, damages, and a fine.

Issues

  1. Whether there was a lawful court order.
  2. Whether the respondents were aware of the existence of the court order.
  3. Whether the respondents had the ability to obey the said court order.
  4. Whether the respondents committed contempt of the court order.
  5. What remedies are available.

Orders

  • The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th respondents are found to be in contempt of court.
  • The respondents shall not interfere with the management of the properties (St. Kizito Ediofe Orphan Primary School, St. Assumpta Health Centre III, and Don Dino Orphanage) until the main suit has been determined.
  • The building structure constructed on the suit property shall not be demolished.
  • The 7th and 8th respondents are ordered to stop releasing any monies for development on the suit land from the school bank accounts to the respondents until final disposal of the civil suit.
  • No order for refund of monies withdrawn and used in construction.
  • No damages awarded.
  • Application allowed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Elements
For contempt of court to be found, three principles must be established: (1) existence of a lawful order, (2) the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order, and (3) the potential contemnor's failure to comply with the order.
Contempt of Court — Knowledge of Order — Agents and Employees
A party who knows of a court order, regardless of whether that party views the order as null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it. The order must be complied with in totality. Agents and employees of a party bound by a court order are also bound by that order and cannot claim ignorance on the basis that they were not named parties to the original proceedings.
Contempt of Court — Status Quo — Meaning and Scope
Status quo denotes the existing state of affairs before a given point in time at which the acts complained of as affecting or likely to affect the existing state of things occurred. Anything, regardless of intention however slight it may be, that changes the state of affairs as they are amounts to a change in status quo.
Contempt of Court — Remedies — Discretion of Court
Civil contempt is punishable by way of committal to civil prison, sequestration, fine, or injunction against the contemnor. The court has discretion to decline to order arrest or demolition where such orders would cause disproportionate loss, and may instead issue declaratory orders restraining further breaches.
Locus Standi — Companies — Capacity to Sue
Under Order 29 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, in a suit by or against a corporation, any pleading may be signed on behalf of the corporation by the secretary or by any director or other principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case. A manager or coordinator of a company's activities qualifies as a principal officer for purposes of deposing affidavits.
Preliminary Objections — Timing and Procedure
Preliminary objections, if raised, must be done at the outset of the trial before the merits are dealt with, except that by consent of the parties or by order of the court on application of either party, a point of law may be set down for hearing and disposed of at any time before the hearing.
Banking — Banker-Customer Relationship — Duty of Confidentiality
The duty of a bank is to act in accordance with the lawful requests of its customer in normal operation of its customer's account. A bank cannot be held in contempt of a court order restraining its customer unless the bank has been served with or has knowledge of that order.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (10)

  • Barbra Nambi v Raymond Lwanga (Miscellaneous Application No. 213 of 2017)
  • Stanbic bank (U) Ltd & Anor Vs Commissioner General of URA
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EACA
  • Salomon v A. Salomon & Co. Ltd [1896] UKHL
  • Asiimwe Nkamushaba v Makerere University (Miscellaneous Application No. 709 of 2018)
  • R v Breamblevale (1969) 1 CH 128
  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd v Uganda Crocs Limited (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2004)
  • Jack Erasmus Nsangiranabo v Col. Kaka Bagyenda - The Director General Internal Security Organization & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 671 of 2019)
  • Wasswa Biriggwa Sekyonda v Tumusiime Festus (Miscellaneous Application No. 1344 of 2020)
  • Jakisa & Others v Kyambogo University (Miscellaneous Application No. 549 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Don Dino Institute for Orphan Care Limited v Rev Fr. Casto and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 88 (31 March 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.