Wakilii

Lukyamzi Investments Limited and 4 Others v Kampala Capital City Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Application 2277 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 44 · 2025 Application Partly Allowed; Contempt Declared AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Contempt of court application arising from failure to comply with consent judgment in Civil Suit No. 930 of 2021
Decision
Respondents found in contempt, ordered to pay exemplary damages and purge contempt within six months

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

Held that a consent judgment once endorsed by court becomes a judgment with the force of law enforceable through contempt proceedings, not by a fresh suit. The respondents were found in contempt for failing to grant vacant possession as required by clause 1 of the consent judgment in Civil Suit No. 930 of 2021. Financial constraints do not justify non-compliance where the respondents had agreed to grant possession immediately upon execution of the consent judgment. The application for consequential orders was denied as unnecessary; respondents were ordered to purge contempt within six months and pay exemplary damages.

Outcome

Respondents found in contempt, ordered to pay exemplary damages and purge contempt within six months

Facts

The applicants filed Civil Suit No. 930 of 2021 seeking vacant possession of leasehold properties. The parties entered into a consent judgment endorsed by the court on 10 February 2022, requiring the respondents to grant vacant possession immediately upon execution and, if compensation was not provided within 12 months, to either process compensation or approve construction of permanent structures. The respondents resurveyed the land and issued new leasehold certificates but failed to grant vacant possession. Despite several communications and meetings, the respondents blocked the applicants from taking possession, citing financial constraints and planning considerations. The applicants brought this application seeking a declaration of contempt and consequential orders.

Issues

  1. Whether the nature of the remedies sought by the Applicants required filing of a fresh suit, and if so, whether the instant application is incompetent?
  2. Whether the Respondents are in contempt of the consent judgment and decree in HCCS No. 930 of 2021?
  3. Whether this is a proper application for grant of the consequential orders sought?
  4. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • A declaration is made that the Respondents acted in contempt of court by failing to comply with orders of the consent judgement vide Civil Suit No. 930 of 2021.
  • The 1st Respondent is ordered to pay to each Applicant Ugx. 30,000,000/- (Thirty Million Shillings Only) as punitive or exemplary damages, with interest at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of the ruling until payment in full.
  • An order that the Respondents purge themselves of the contempt by complying with the terms of the consent judgment within 6 months of the ruling.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Consent Judgments — Nature and Enforcement — Distinction from Contract
A consent judgment once recorded or endorsed by court becomes the judgment of the court and binding upon the parties, and non-compliance with a consent decree results in contempt of court, while failure to comply with a settlement agreement is simply a breach of contract.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Proper Procedure for Enforcement of Consent Judgments
Where parties enter into a consent judgment that is endorsed by court, the successful decree holder is entitled to bring a contempt of court application to enforce satisfaction of the decree and is not required to file a fresh suit to seek remedies already granted by court.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements to be Proved
To succeed in a contempt of court application, the following ingredients must be proved: the existence of a lawful court order, the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order, the potential contemnor's ability to comply, and the potential contemnor's failure to comply.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Ability to Comply — Financial Constraints
Where a party to a consent judgment was in possession of properties at the time of endorsement and agreed to grant vacant possession immediately upon execution, it is in bad faith for that party to claim financial constraints as justification for inability to comply, particularly where granting possession requires no financial undertaking.
Civil Procedure — Consequential Orders — Proper Basis for Grant
Consequential orders are proper where the court hands out a judgment but its implementation is impossible except with further orders; where there is no evidence that implementation of a consent judgment is impossible save for contempt, a consequential order cannot suffice and the proper remedy is an order directing the contemnor to purge the contempt within a specified time.
Administrative Law — Government Agencies — Exemplary Damages for Contempt
Exemplary damages may be awarded where there is oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by servants of the Government; a Government Agency found in contempt of court may be ordered to pay punitive or exemplary damages to each affected party.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (16)

  • Dison Okumu and Others v Uganda Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2020)
  • Kateregga George William v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application No. 347 of 2013)
  • Simba (K) Ltd and Others v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
  • Betty Kizito v Dickson Nsubuga and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 25 & 26 of 2021)
  • David Onen and 2 Others v Ocan Otto and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 131 of 2019)
  • Friedhelm Erwin Jost and Another v Roko Construction Ltd and 2 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 89 of 2021)
  • Visare Uganda Ltd v Festus Katerega T/a Quick Way Auctioneers and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 591 of 2023)
  • Erasmus Masiko v John Imaniraguha and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1481 of 2016)
  • Sitenda Sebala v The Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2022)
  • Amrit Goyal v Harichand Goyal and 3 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 109 of 2004)
  • Kanohiti Feddy v Tumusiime Rovina and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 336 of 2019)
  • Mugerwa John Bosco and Another v Mss Xsabo Power Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 273 of 2018)
  • Pentecostal Assemblies of God Ltd v Joel Mukalu and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 290 of 2022)
  • Kalibala Vincent and others v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 70 of 2016)
  • Conform Uganda Limited v Megha Industries (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application 1084 of 2014)
  • Kibeedi Hussein v Hotel Triangle Ltd and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 128 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lukyamzi_Investments_Limited_and_4_Others_v_Kampala_Capital_City_Authority_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_2277_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_44_(13_March_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.