Wakilii

Lukenge Hakeem v Hajati Namagembe and Others (Civil Application No. 290 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHC 2 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court and stay of proceedings arising from Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 311 of 2015
Decision
Application for contempt of court and stay of proceedings dismissed

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 dismissed the application for contempt of court, holding that the order allegedly breached was ambiguous and lacked clarity as to what acts were prohibited and to what property it applied. The order merely stated that parties must maintain the status quo without specifying what that status quo was or to which property of the deceased's estate it applied. An order lacking essential details about where, when, or to whom it applies cannot ground contempt proceedings. The application for stay of proceedings was also dismissed as improperly before a Single Justice.

Outcome

Application for contempt of court and stay of proceedings dismissed

Facts

The applicant is the administrator of the estate of the late Hajji Jaffer Sentamu, who died in 1980 leaving 6 widows and 48 children. The respondents are some of the deceased's children. Disputes arose over distribution of the estate. In Civil Application No. 311 of 2015, the Court of Appeal ordered that the status quo be maintained until further orders. The applicant alleged that the respondents dealt with land forming part of the estate (Block 2 Plot 12, Rwakiruli, Isingiro District) in contempt of that order. The respondents contended that the land had been distributed to them under the Kaberebere Declaration in 1989 and that the 2015 order concerned different land. The applicant sought to have the respondents held in contempt and punished, and also sought a stay of proceedings in Civil Suit No. 33 of 2018 filed by some respondents in the High Court at Mbarara.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for stay of proceedings can be entertained by a Single Justice of the Court of Appeal.
  2. Whether the respondents are in contempt of court for disobeying the order made in Civil Application No. 311 of 2015.
  3. Whether the order in Civil Application No. 311 of 2015 is sufficiently clear and unequivocal to ground contempt proceedings.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Powers of Single Justice — Stay of Proceedings
An application for stay of proceedings cannot be entertained before a Single Justice of the Court of Appeal and can only be handled by the full Court.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Elements
For a finding of civil contempt, three elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: first, the order alleged to have been breached must state clearly and unequivocally what should and should not be done; second, the party alleged to have breached the order must have had actual knowledge of it; and third, the party allegedly in breach must have intentionally done the act that the order prohibits or intentionally failed to do the act that the order compels.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Clarity of Order — Ambiguous Orders
An order may be found to be unclear and incapable of grounding contempt proceedings if it is missing an essential detail about where, when, or to whom it applies, if it incorporates overly broad language, or if external circumstances have obscured its meaning. An order that merely directs parties to maintain the status quo without specifying what that status quo is or to what property it applies is ambiguous and lacking in clarity.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Construction of Orders
When construing an order for purposes of contempt proceedings, only the wording of the order itself may be considered. The court will not look to the Notice of Motion or other documents to give context to an ambiguous order.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (19)

  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Jacobsen Uganda Power Plant Company (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v The Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567
  • Chuck vs. Cremer (1 Coop Temp Cott 342)
  • Wildlife Lodges v Country Council of Narok and Another [2005] EA 344
  • Kyaggwe Coffee Curing Estates Ltd v Emmanuel Lukwajju (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 327 of 2014)
  • Megha Industries (U) Ltd v Comform Uganda Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2014)
  • Monica Mirembe Kakooza v Kalinza Margret (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 43 of 2013)
  • Re Contempt of Dougherty 429, Michigan 81
  • Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semu Amanu Opio (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)
  • Cassell Co. Ltd v Broome [1972] 1 All ER 801
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Another v The Commissioner General, URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Attorney General and Another v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)
  • Mutembuli Yusuf v Nagwomu Moses and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 43 of 2016)
  • Angelina Lamunu Langoya v Olweny George William (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 30 of 2019)
  • Alken Connections Ltd v Safaricom Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 450 of 2012)
  • Re Ivan Samuel Sebaduka (Contempt Proceedings arising from Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2020)
  • Poje v Attorney General for British Columbia [1953] 1 SCR 516
  • Carey v Laiken [2015] 2 SCR 79

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lukenge Hakeem v Hajati Namagembe and Others (Civil Application No. 290 of 2020) [2021] UGHC 2 (8 February 2021)
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.