Wakilii

Juuko Lawrence Ssango v Michael Jenkins Katende and John Katende (Civil Application Reference No. 1 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 300 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Reference application from decision of Assistant Registrar dismissing contempt application
Decision
Ruling and orders of Assistant Registrar set aside on jurisdictional grounds

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 the Assistant Registrar lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for contempt of court orders. The jurisdiction to deal with civil contempt not committed in the face of court lies with a Judge of the High Court, not the Registrar. The powers of the Registrar are specifically prescribed under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and contempt proceedings fall outside those enumerated powers. The Assistant Registrar therefore exercised jurisdiction not vested in her, rendering the resultant orders null and having no legal effect. The application was granted and the ruling and orders in MA No. 122 of 2023 were set aside.

Outcome

Ruling and orders of Assistant Registrar set aside on jurisdictional grounds

Facts

The Applicant, dissatisfied with the Assistant Registrar's decision delivered on 21 August 2023 dismissing his contempt application, filed a reference application. The Applicant had sought to have the Respondents held in contempt for allegedly disobeying court orders in Misc. Application No. 697 of 2018, Misc. Application No. 696 of 2018 and Misc. Application No. 318 of 2018, all arising from consolidated Civil Suits No. 358 of 2018 and 650 of 2021. In his contempt application (MA No. 122 of 2023), the Applicant had sought not only enforcement of existing orders but also additional relief including compensation of UGX 69,000,000 for destroyed property, damages of UGX 120,000,000, detention in civil prison, and a permanent injunction. The Respondents opposed the application, denying contempt and asserting that the Assistant Registrar properly dismissed the application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Assistant Registrar had jurisdiction to hear an application for contempt of court orders
  2. Whether the Assistant Registrar erred in law and fact when she found the Respondents knowledgeable of the court orders but failed to hold them in contempt
  3. Whether the decision of the Assistant Registrar in Misc. Application No. 122 of 2023 can be revised or set aside

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • The ruling and orders in Misc. Application No. 122 of 2023 set aside.
  • Each party to bear own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction of Registrar — Contempt of Court — Whether Registrar has jurisdiction to hear applications for civil contempt not committed in face of court
The jurisdiction of the Registrar is specifically prescribed by law under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the Registrar does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for contempt of court orders not committed in the face of court. Such jurisdiction lies with a Judge of the High Court.
Administrative Law — Judicial Officers — Powers of Registrar — Inherent power to punish contempt in face of court distinguished from civil contempt by motion
While a Registrar has inherent power to deal with contempt committed in the face of court, contempt that is not committed in the face of court is sui generis and must be instituted by an applicant through a motion before a Judge. A Registrar has no power to punish contempt other than contempt in the face of court.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Acts done without jurisdiction — Legal effect of orders made without jurisdiction
Where a judicial officer exercises jurisdiction not vested in them, the resultant orders are a nullity and have no legal effect on the parties.
Civil Procedure — Permanent injunctions — Grant of permanent injunctions — Permanent injunctions as remedy after trial with evidence
Permanent or final injunctions are granted as a remedy against an infringement or violation which has been proven at trial after leading evidence. The jurisdiction to grant permanent injunctions lies with the Judge of the High Court and not the Registrar.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Akena and Another v Omuraiya (Court of Appeal No. 35 of 2016)
  • Kassim v Soroti District Land Board and 2 Others (Misc. Application No. 77 of 2020)
  • Pawa v Mugwamale and Another (Misc. Civil Application No. 96 of 2016)
  • Aniceta Abio Dramadd v Elwoku Jus Richard and 2 Others (Misc. Civil Application No. 14 of 2016 and 003 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Juuko_Lawrence_Ssango_v_Michael_Jenkins_Katende_and_John_Katende_(Civil_Application_Reference_No._1_of_2024)_[2024]_UGHCLD_300_(7_October_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.