Wakilii

KCB Bank Limited v Formula Feeds Limited and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 681 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 167 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from execution proceedings in an underlying civil suit concerning a loan secured by mortgage
Decision
1st and 2nd respondents found in contempt; 1st respondent fined; 2nd respondent to be imprisoned until compliance; transfers to 4th and 5th respondents declared void and ordered cancelled

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 1st and 2nd respondents were guilty of civil contempt of court by transferring mortgaged land to third parties instead of complying with a clear court order requiring rectification of mailo land titles to leasehold titles to revive a mortgage. The court order was unambiguous and required creation of leasehold titles, not transfer to citizens. The 1st respondent was fined UGX 40,000,000 with UGX 38,000,000 as compensation to the applicant bank. The 2nd respondent was ordered to be committed to civil imprisonment until he complied with the rectification order. Transfers to the 4th and 5th respondents were declared null and void.

Outcome

1st and 2nd respondents found in contempt; 1st respondent fined; 2nd respondent to be imprisoned until compliance; transfers to 4th and 5th respondents declared void and ordered cancelled

Facts

The 1st respondent borrowed UGX 3,700,000,000 from the applicant bank secured by mortgage over eighteen plots registered in the names of the 1st and 2nd respondents. Following litigation, a partial consent judgment was entered for UGX 2,159,000,000. The Court of Appeal found the mortgage illegal because non-citizens (the 1st and 2nd respondents) held mailo land titles instead of leaseholds, and recommended rectification under section 91 of the Land Act to convert the titles to leaseholds to revive the mortgage. The Executions Division ordered cancellation of an illegal sale and directed the titles be returned to the 1st and 2nd respondents for rectification. Instead of creating leasehold titles as directed, the 1st and 2nd respondents obtained special certificates of title and transferred the land to the 4th and 5th respondents. The applicant bank brought this contempt application.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents were in contempt of court by failing to comply with the order to rectify land titles by creating leasehold titles instead of transferring the land to third parties.
  2. Whether the order of the Executions Division was clear and unambiguous as to the mode of rectification required.
  3. Whether the 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents were in contempt of court.
  4. What sanctions, if any, should be imposed for contempt of court.

Orders

  • Both the 1st and 2nd respondents are guilty of contempt of court by flouting the order requiring rectification of land titles by failing to cause issuance of leasehold titles.
  • Within fourteen days, the 1st respondent is to pay a fine of UGX 40,000,000 out of which UGX 38,000,000 shall be applied as compensation to the applicant.
  • Transfer of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 101 Plots 190, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 and 275 at Wattuba by the 1st respondent to the 4th respondent is null and void and should be cancelled by the 3rd respondent forthwith.
  • Transfer of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 90 Plots 397, 459 and 460 at Katalemwa by the 2nd respondent to the 5th respondent is null and void and should be cancelled by the 3rd respondent forthwith.
  • The special certificates of title issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of the eighteen plots are null and void and should be cancelled by the 3rd respondent forthwith.
  • If within fourteen days the 2nd respondent shall not have caused surrender of all title deeds, executed all documents for conversion of mailo titles to leaseholds, and paid all fees and taxes required, the 2nd respondent shall be committed to civil imprisonment until he complies.
  • The 3rd respondent shall surrender the resultant leasehold title deeds to the applicant.
  • The 1st and 2nd respondents are to meet the applicant's costs of the application as well as the costs of the rest of the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Requirements for Finding of Contempt — Clear and Unambiguous Order
For a decree or order of court to support contempt proceedings, it must be clear, direct, and unequivocal, not hedged about by conditions and qualifications. The order must be specific and definite so as to inform the party what they are to do or abstain from doing. An indefinite, uncertain or ambiguous order cannot be enforced in contempt proceedings.
Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Wilful Disobedience
Civil contempt consists of wilful failure to comply with a court order when the contemnor is capable of complying. Wilfulness means acting deliberately, knowing what one is doing and intending to do it. It is not necessary that the disobedience be contumacious; the mere act of disobedience is sufficient if it defeats, impairs or prejudices the rights of a party or interferes with the administration of justice.
Contempt of Court — Defences — Good Faith Misinterpretation
Good faith misinterpretation of a court order, absence of contumacious disobedience, and lack of intent to violate an order do not constitute valid defences to contempt. Where an order is clear on its face, even an honest mistake regarding its meaning can result in a finding of contempt. Reliance on advice of counsel is not a defence to contempt, though it may be considered in mitigation of punishment.
Land Registration — Rectification — Section 91 of the Land Act
Section 91(2) of the Land Act empowers the Registrar to rectify the register where a title was issued in error, contains illegal endorsement, or is illegally obtained or retained. Rectification protects against errors in the registration process and preserves rights of persons who can seek rectification on grounds of fraud or mistake. A mistake rectifiable under section 91(2) may consist of a mistaken entry or mistaken omission of an entry which should have been made.
Land Tenure — Non-Citizens — Automatic Conversion of Mailo to Leasehold
Non-citizens may only acquire leasehold interests in land under Article 237(2)(c) of the Constitution and section 40 of the Land Act. Where non-citizens hold mailo land titles by honest mistake, the concept of automatic conversion found in section 40(6) may be extended to deem the estate transferred a lease. Leases created by operation of law have basic covenants implied by law, and the parties may subsequently supply express covenants to give full effect to the implied terms.
Contempt of Court — Sanctions — Remedial versus Punitive
Civil contempt sanctions are remedial and coercive, designed to compel compliance with court orders or compensate the injured party, not to punish. Where contempt consists of present refusal to perform an act within the contemnor's power, the court may order imprisonment until performance or impose a fine for the benefit of the injured party. Criminal contempt sanctions are punitive and vindicate the court's authority through fixed fines or imprisonment.
Implied Terms — Leases Created by Operation of Law
Implied covenants in leases are obligations deemed to exist even if not expressly stated. For leases created by operation of law, basic covenants are implied by law. Laws subsisting at the time and place of making a contract enter into and form part of it as if expressly incorporated, unless a contrary intent is disclosed. Express covenants may subsequently be supplied by parties to give full effect to implied terms.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (39)

  • A. G v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974] A.C. 273
  • R v. Almon (1765) 97 ER 94
  • Ahnee and others v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] 2 WLR 1305
  • R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex parte Blackburn (No 2) [1968] 2 All ER 319
  • Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Amusement Caterers (Peckham) Ltd. [1964] Ch. 195
  • Scott v. Scott [1913] AC 417
  • Worthington v. Ad-lib Club Ltd. [1964] 3 All. ER 674
  • Parashuram Detaram Shamsdani v. King-Emperor [1945] AC 264
  • Danchevsky v. Danchevsky [1974] 3 All ER 934
  • Alken Connections Limited v. Safaricom Limited and 2 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 450 of 2012) [2013] eKLR
  • Roach v. Garvan (1740) 2 Atk. 469
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v. Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)
  • Jack Erasmus Nsangiranabo v. Col. Kaka Bagyenda and another (Miscellaneous Application No. 671 of 2019)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and another v. Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Republic v. Commissioner of Lands and 12 others, Ex Parte James Kiniya Gachira (HCMA No. 149 of 2002)
  • Jacob Zedekiah Ochino and another v. George Aura Okombo and 4 others [1989] KLR 165
  • Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v. Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98
  • R v. Senior (1895) All ER 511
  • Re Young and Harston's Contract (1885) 31 Ch. D 168
  • Heaton's Transport (St Helen's) Ltd v. Transport and General Workers' Union [1973] AC 15
  • Re Tyre Manufacturers' Agreement [1966] 2 All E.R. 849
  • Norwich & Peterborough Building Society v. Steed (No 2) [1993] 1 All E.R. 330
  • NRAM Ltd v. Evans [2018] 1 WLR 1563
  • Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v. Steed [1993] Ch 116
  • Bank of Scotland PLC v. Greville Development Co (Midlands) Ltd [2014] All ER (D) 100
  • Investors' Compensation Scheme Ltd v. West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 W.L.R. 896
  • The Nai Genova [1984] 1 Lloyds Rep 353
  • Swainland Builders Limited v. Freehold Properties Limited [2002] EWCA Civ 560
  • Street v. Mountford [1985] AC 809
  • Doyle v. London Guarantee Co [1894] 1 Q.B. 244
  • Barbara Nambi v. Raymond Lwanga (Miscellaneous Application No. 213 of 2017)
  • Mega Industries (U) Ltd v. Comfoam Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause No. 21 of 2014)
  • Dr. Charles Twesigye v. Kyambogo University (Miscellaneous Application No. 120 of 2017)
  • Attorney General v. Male Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka (Miscellaneous Application No. 843 of 2021)
  • Nambasi Nelson Ludambisa v. Khan Investments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 602 of 2018)
  • Semanda David and two others v. Kaheebwa Geofrey and another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1625 of 2016)
  • Wilfred Bugingo v. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1242 of 2016)
  • Jane Sempebwa and another v. Ndibalekera Magdalena (Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of 2019)
  • In re Freston (1887) 13 App. Cas. 20

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

KCB Bank Limited v Formula Feeds Limited and 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 681 of 2021) [2022] UGCommC 167 (12 September 2022)
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.