Kasoma v Kizza (Civil Application No. 333 of 2013)

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.

Holding

The single Justice allowed the reference and set aside the Registrar's order committing the respondent to civil prison for contempt. A person who is not a party to the proceedings or to the court orders cannot be held in contempt of those orders. The Registrar's stay order was unenforceable because it failed to specify the motor vehicles affected. A milk tank fixed onto a lorry does not automatically form part of the motor vehicle; the two were separate and the respondent proved this. Having acted upon a valid release order of the High Court, the respondent committed no contempt. The Registrar erred in committing him and in referring his counsel for disciplinary proceedings.

Outcome

Reference allowed; Registrar's order committing the respondent to civil prison for contempt set aside; civil appeal to be fixed for hearing

Facts

Kasoma Fred lost a civil suit in the Nakawa Magistrates' Court and lost his subsequent appeal to the High Court. He filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal and obtained an interim order, later a consent order, staying execution and requiring impounded vehicles to be retained at Nakawa Court. A Fuso lorry was impounded, carrying a milk tank belonging to Kizza Christopher, who was not a party to any of the proceedings. Kizza applied to the High Court Registrar, who issued a clear order allowing him to remove and take possession of his milk tank, holding it was not part of the lorry. Kizza removed his tank. Kasoma then applied to the Court of Appeal for a warrant of arrest against Kizza for violating the stay orders. The Court of Appeal Registrar committed Kizza to civil prison for contempt and referred his counsel for disciplinary proceedings. Kizza sought a reference against this order.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent, who was not a party to the appeal or to the orders of the Court of Appeal, could be held in contempt of those orders.
2. Whether the Registrar's order of stay of execution was enforceable where it failed to specify the motor vehicles subject to the order.
3. Whether a milk tank fixed onto a lorry forms part of the motor vehicle subject to attachment.
4. Whether a person acting upon a valid order of the High Court could be in contempt of court.

Orders

• Reference allowed.
• Order of the Registrar dated 24th June 2012 set aside.
• All subsequent orders set aside.
• The applicant pays costs of this application.
• The civil appeal be fixed immediately for hearing.

Rules and key headnotes

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