Wakilii

Kihanga and 5 Others v Nalweyiso and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 9 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 304 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court orders arising from an earlier civil appeal
Decision
Application for contempt dismissed; respondents found not in contempt of court orders

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

Held that a party aware of a court order cannot disobey it regardless of whether they view it as null, void, regular or irregular, and must apply to have it discharged if aggrieved. However, applicants failed to prove that respondents other than the 1st respondent were aware of the order. The 1st respondent was found to be lawfully occupying 3.5 acres as decreed by the court order which had never been varied or discharged. Application for contempt dismissed.

Outcome

Application for contempt dismissed; respondents found not in contempt of court orders

Facts

The applicants obtained judgment in Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2016 declaring them lawful occupants of suit land. The court order allowed the 1st respondent, as registered proprietor, to use and utilize 3.5 acres while the rest was to be utilized by the applicants. The applicants then brought a contempt application alleging the respondents violated court orders by attempting to evict them and destroying crops. The 1st respondent, registered proprietor of Private Mailo Block 112 Plots 50 and 51 at Kyeyitabya, Mpigi District, contended she was lawfully occupying the 3.5 acres decreed to her and that the applicants resisted survey to carve off her portion. The applicants claimed the entire suit land measured 3.5 acres making the order erroneous.

Issues

  1. Whether there are existing valid court orders?
  2. Whether the respondents are in contempt of the said court orders?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.
  • Right of appeal explained.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Conditions for Proving Contempt
To prove contempt of court, an applicant must establish three conditions: (a) existence of a lawful order; (b) the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order; and (c) the potential contemnor's failure to comply with the order.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Duty to Obey Court Orders
A party who knows of a court order, regardless of whether they view it as null, void, regular or irregular, cannot disobey it. As long as the order exists, it must be obeyed. The party's recourse is to apply to court to have the order discharged, not to choose whether or not to comply.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Burden of Proof — Knowledge of Order by Non-Party
Where persons who were not party to the original proceedings are alleged to be in contempt, the applicant bears the burden of proving that those persons were aware of the court order before they can be found guilty of contempt.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Another v Commissioner General - URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd vs. Uganda Revenue Authority (Supra)
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)
  • Chuck v. Cremer, 1 Corp Jemp 342
  • Housing Finance Bank Limited and Another v Edward Musiisi (Civil Appeal No. 158 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kihanga_and_5_Others_v_Nalweyiso_and_3_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_9_of_2020)_[2022]_UGHCLD_304_(13_April_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.