Wakilii

Kyosimire Marion and Another v Munanura Gordon and Others (Miscellaneous Application No.137 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 100 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for committal for contempt of court arising from alleged disobedience of a temporary injunction order
Decision
Application for committal for contempt dismissed due to failure to prove respondents' knowledge of the court 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 application for committal for contempt. The court held that typographical errors in the affidavit (describing the female applicant as male and referring to a non-existent managing director) did not render the affidavit incurably defective and could be severed. On the merits, the court found that the applicants failed to prove that the respondents had knowledge of the temporary injunction order, as there was no evidence of personal service or that the order was brought to the respondents' attention. Without proof of knowledge, the respondents could not be held liable for violating an order they did not know existed.

Outcome

Application for committal for contempt dismissed due to failure to prove respondents' knowledge of the court order

Facts

The applicants sought to commit the respondents to civil prison for contempt of a temporary injunction issued on 6 April 2023, which restrained the respondents from evicting the applicants, selling any part of the disputed land, or destroying structures on land forming part of the estate of the late Kabagambe Yowasi. The applicants alleged that in December 2023, the respondents disposed of part of the land used by the applicants, destroyed banana and coffee trees, and constructed a house on the disputed land. The respondents denied knowledge of the injunction order, stating they were not served with it and that it was issued in their absence and in the absence of their then counsel. The respondents further stated that the land on which construction was taking place had been sold by the late Kabagambe Yowasi to his son Turyahabwe Justus in 2019, before the injunction was issued.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in support of the application is incurably defective due to typographical errors.
  2. Whether the respondents had knowledge of the temporary injunction order.
  3. Whether the respondents disobeyed the temporary injunction order by selling land, destroying crops, and constructing a house on the disputed property.
  4. Whether the respondents should be committed to civil prison for contempt of court.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Defective Affidavits — Typographical Errors — Severability
A typographical error in an affidavit, such as incorrectly describing the gender of a deponent or referring to a non-existent managing director, does not render the entire affidavit incurably defective where the error does not go to the root of the application and the offending portions can be severed, leaving the remaining content capable of supporting the application.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements of Civil Contempt — Knowledge of Court Order
For a party to be found in contempt of a court order, the applicant must establish: (1) that an order was issued by the court; (2) that the order was served or brought to the notice of the alleged contemnor; (3) that there was non-compliance with the order; and (4) that the non-compliance was wilful or mala fide.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Service of Court Orders — Personal Service Requirement
Before enforcing a court order by process of contempt, it is necessary to prove that the judgment or order alleged to have been disobeyed was properly served on the alleged contemnor, either by personal service or by bringing the order to the attention of the party through other means, unless the court dispenses with service or orders substituted service in appropriate circumstances.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Knowledge of Court Order — Burden of Proof
Where an applicant seeks to commit a respondent for contempt of a court order, the applicant bears the burden of proving that the respondent had knowledge of the order, either through personal service or by demonstrating that the order was brought to the respondent's attention by other means. A respondent cannot be held liable for violating an order they did not know existed.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (19)

  • Bitaitana and 4 Others v Kananura (Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1976)
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 007 of 2018)
  • Besigye Kiiza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Another (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Yona Kanyomozi v Motor Mart (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 1999)
  • Rutuku Francis and 5 Others v Eliphas Ndamagye (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 111 of 2017)
  • Muriisa Nicholas v Attorney General and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 035 of 2012)
  • Barbra Nambi v Raymond Lwanga (Miscellaneous Application No. 213 of 2017)
  • Kizito v Nsubuga and 6 Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 25 of 2021)
  • Prof. Frederick E. Ssempebwa, SC and Others v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 005 of 2019)
  • Phonographic Performance Ltd Vs Amusement Caterers (Peckham) Ltd [1964] Ch 195
  • Jennison Vs Baker [1972] 2 QB 52
  • Johnson Vs Walton [1990] 1 FLR 350
  • Betty Kizito v Dickson Nsubuga (Supreme Court Civil Applications No. 25 and 26 of 2021)
  • Ronson Products Ltd Vs Ronson Furniture Ltd [1966] Ch 603
  • Husson Vs Husson [1962] 3 ALL.E.R 1056
  • Hickling Vs Baker [2007] EWCA Civ 287
  • Mander Vs Falcke [1891] 3 Ch 488
  • R V Wigand [1913] 2 KB 419
  • R Vs City of London Magistrates' Court Exp. Green [1997] 3 ALL.ER 551

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kyosimire Marion and Another v Munanura Gordon and Others (Miscellaneous Application No.137 of 2024) [2026] UGHC 100 (10 February 2026)
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.