Wakilii

Kiyaga Emmanuel and Others v Golooba Haruna and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 3238 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 293 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from HCCS No. 255 of 2013
Decision
Application for contempt dismissed; no finding of contempt made against 3rd and 4th respondents

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 dismissed an application for contempt of court brought by administrators of an estate against parties alleged to have violated orders in a prior land suit. The court held that contempt requires proof that the alleged contemnor had knowledge of the court order. The 3rd respondent's uncontroverted averment that he was never served with the judgment and decree meant the applicants failed to establish knowledge. The 4th respondent's denial of contemptuous conduct was similarly unrebutted. Facts in an affidavit not rebutted are deemed admitted. Application dismissed with costs to the 3rd and 4th respondents.

Outcome

Application for contempt dismissed; no finding of contempt made against 3rd and 4th respondents

Facts

The late Benedicto Nsubuga was the registered proprietor of land comprised in Kyaddondo Block 180 Plot 517 & 518. In 2013, he filed HCCS No. 255 of 2013 against the 4th respondent and others, which was decided in his favour on 12 August 2020, declaring the 4th respondent a trespasser. The 3rd respondent participated as a counter defendant. After Nsubuga's death, the applicants were appointed administrators of his estate. Between March and December 2022, the 1st applicant received summons from the Commissioner Land Registration based on a complaint by the 3rd respondent, which was ultimately dismissed. The applicants lodged caveats on the suit land. On 22 November 2024, the applicants discovered that the 1st respondent had issued a cancellation and amendment order for the certificate of title. The applicants alleged that the 3rd and 4th respondents were undertaking activities on the land in contempt of the 2020 court order. The 3rd respondent averred he was never served with the judgment and decree. The 4th respondent denied engaging in any contemptuous conduct.

Issues

  1. Whether the 3rd and 4th respondents are in contempt of court order issued in HCCS No. 255 of 2013 issued on 12th August 2020
  2. What are the remedies available?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 3rd and 4th respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements — Knowledge of Court Order
For contempt of court to be established, it must be shown that there exists a lawful order, that the alleged contemnor has knowledge of the said order, and that he or she has failed to comply with the same.
Contempt of Court — Service of Judgment — Burden of Proof
In applications for contempt of court, the applicant must show that the alleged contemnor has knowledge of the order issued by court. Where the alleged contemnor avers that he was never served with the judgment and decree, and this averment is not rebutted by the applicant, the court cannot find contempt established.
Affidavit Evidence — Unrebutted Averments — Effect
It is a settled legal principle that facts in an affidavit that are not rebutted by the opposite party are deemed to be admitted.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (3)

  • Uganda Super League v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 73 of 2013)
  • Nsangiranabo v Col. Kaka Bagyenda and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 671 of 2019)
  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 297

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiyaga_Emmanuel_and_Others_v_Golooba_Haruna_and_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._3238_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_293_(18_September_2025)
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.