Jomayi Property Consultants Limited v Bulamu and 4 Others (Miscellaneous Application 180 of 2021)
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
Court dismissed an application for contempt of court where two conflicting High Court judgments existed concerning the same land. The court held that parties could not be found in contempt of a court order that is subject to a pending appeal before the Court of Appeal. The second, third, fourth, and fifth respondents were not parties to the original suit and could not have been aware of its orders. Application dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.
Outcome
Application for contempt of court dismissed; parties directed to await determination of pending appeal in Court of Appeal
Facts
The applicant purchased plots 45, 46, and 49 subdivided from Mawokota Block 60 Plot 15. In HCCS No. 57 of 2017, the High Court validated the applicant's purchase and declared it a bonafide purchaser. The first respondent and co-plaintiffs appealed this decision via Civil Appeal No. 237 of 2019, which remained pending. Meanwhile, relying on an earlier Family Division decree in HCCS No. 197 of 2015 that had revoked the administrator's letters and ordered reversion of the property to the estate of the late Benwa Kisalita, the respondents caused cancellation of the applicant's titles, obtained a special certificate of title for Plot 15, subdivided it into Plots 2048-2054, and transferred them to third parties. The applicant brought this application alleging contempt of the decree in HCCS No. 57 of 2017.
Issues
- Whether the Respondents are in contempt of court.
- Whether the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs and prayers sought.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Cases cited (3)
- Hon Sitenda Sebalu v The Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)
- Uganda Super League v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 73 of 2023)
- Jack Erasmus Nsangiranabo v Col Kaka Bagyenda & Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 671 of 2019)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.