Wakilii

Kizito v Kibuuka & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 48 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 338 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for committal to civil prison for contempt of court order arising from Civil Suit No. 02 of 2017
Decision
1st Respondent struck off as claimant in main suit, committed to civil prison for three months, and ordered to pay costs

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 court found the 1st Respondent in contempt of court for failing to conduct land searches as ordered and for blocking a court-ordered survey. The 1st Respondent's excuse of lacking authority from registered proprietors was rejected as land registers are public documents. His alibi of being in Kasango was destroyed by his written objection admitting he blocked the survey. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents were not found in contempt as knowledge of the court order was not proved against them.

Outcome

1st Respondent struck off as claimant in main suit, committed to civil prison for three months, and ordered to pay costs

Facts

The Applicant brought an application for committal to civil prison for contempt of a court order dated 15 February 2022 arising from Civil Suit No. 02 of 2017. The court order required a survey of land comprised in Buddu Block 508 Plots 40 and 56 at Kakunyu on 24 February 2022, with police security, and required the 1st Respondent (who was the 1st Plaintiff in the main suit) to conduct searches on the suit land. The 1st Respondent was present in court when the order was made. The Applicant alleged that the three Respondents blocked the survey and that the 1st Respondent failed to conduct the required searches. The 1st Respondent claimed he was in Kasango trying to arrange police security and could not have blocked the survey. He also claimed he lacked authority from registered proprietors to conduct searches and had served the order on the Registrar of Titles but received no response. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents were not in court when the order was made.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents are in contempt of court?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Application partly succeeds with costs against the 1st Respondent.
  • The 1st Plaintiff/1st Respondent is struck off Civil Suit No. 02 of 2017 as a claimant.
  • The 1st Respondent's case is dismissed with costs to the Applicant.
  • The 1st Respondent is sent to civil prison for three months.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements Required for Finding of Contempt
For contempt of court to be found, three elements must be established: existence of a lawful court order, the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order, and the potential contemnor's disobedience of the order.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Land Searches — Public Nature of Land Registers
A party's excuse for failing to conduct court-ordered land searches on the ground of lacking authority from registered proprietors is invalid because registers of lands are public documents upon which a search may be conducted by any individual.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Remedy — Striking Off Party as Claimant
A party who is in contempt of court cannot be heard in any other related matter, and where a plaintiff is found in contempt intended to forestall the hearing of the main suit, the court may strike off that plaintiff as a claimant and dismiss their case with costs.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Megha Industries (U) Ltd v Conform Uganda (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2014)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd v The Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2020)
  • Housing Finance Bank and Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kizito v Kibuuka & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 48 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 338 (18 April 2023)
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.