Wakilii

Kyeyune Nuriat Alias Biira Nansubuga v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and Others (Civil Suit No. 140 of 2026; Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2026; Miscellaneous Application No. 2

High Court · [2026] UGCommC 757 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from alleged disobedience of an ex parte interim order restraining eviction
Decision
Contempt application dismissed; respondents found not in contempt of the ex parte interim order

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 the contempt application, holding that the respondents did not violate the ex parte interim order dated 10 March 2026 because they took possession of the suit land on 6 March 2026, before the order was made. The court found that the respondents were served with the order on 11 March 2026, after they had already taken possession. To establish contempt, a complainant must prove: the existence of a lawful order, the contemnor's knowledge of the order, their ability to comply, and their failure to comply. The applicant failed to prove that the respondents disobeyed the order, as the change in possession predated both the order and the respondents' knowledge of it.

Outcome

Contempt application dismissed; respondents found not in contempt of the ex parte interim order

Facts

The applicant, Kyeyune Nuriat, alleged that her husband mortgaged their matrimonial home (Kyadondo Block 234 Plot 2183) to Equity Bank without her knowledge or consent. After default on the loan, the bank foreclosed and sold the property to Enterprise Handling Services Ltd on 30 January 2026. The second respondent was registered as proprietor and took possession on 6 March 2026. The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 140 of 2026 challenging the mortgage and sale. On 10 March 2026, the court issued an ex parte interim order restraining eviction. The applicant alleged that on 10 March 2026, the respondents forcefully evicted her despite the order. She applied for a contempt finding. The respondents contended that possession was handed over on 6 March 2026, before the order was issued, and that they were only served with the order on 11 March 2026.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents are in contempt of the Court order issued vide Miscellaneous Application No. 250 of 2026 dated 10th March, 2026

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements Required for Proof
To establish contempt of court, the complainant must prove: (1) the existence of a lawful order; (2) the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order; (3) the potential contemnor's ability to comply; and (4) the potential contemnor's failure to comply.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Knowledge of Order as Prerequisite
A person cannot be held in contempt of court without knowledge of the court order. Knowledge is an essential element of contempt proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Timing of Conduct Relative to Order
Where a party takes an action before a court order is issued and before the party has knowledge of the order, that conduct cannot constitute contempt of the order, even if the conduct would have violated the order had the order been in existence.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Obligation to Comply with Valid Orders
A party who knows of an order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it as long as it exists. The order must be complied with in totality and in all circumstances.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (9)

  • Prof. Fredrick E. Ssempebwa and Others v Attorney General (SC Civil Application No. 05 of 2019)
  • Andrew Kilama Lajul v Uganda Coffee Development Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 324 of 2020)
  • Onen David and 2 Others v Otto Ocan and 2 Others (HCMA No. 131 of 2019)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Ref. No. 8 of 2012)
  • Betty Kizito v Dickson Nsubuga and Others (SC Civil Applications No. 25 and 26 of 2021)
  • Jack Erasmus Nsangiranabo v Col. Kaka Bagyenda and Attorney General (HCMA No. 671 of 2019)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567
  • Church v Cremer (1 Coop Temp Cott 342)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Another v Edward Musisi (CACA No. 158 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kyeyune Nuriat Alias Biira Nansubuga v Equity Bank Uganda Limited and Others (Civil Suit No. 140 of 2026; Miscellaneous Application No. 249 of 2026; Miscellaneous Application No. 2
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.