Wakilii

Manyi Grace v Marion Mirembe and Others (Miscellaneous Application 5077 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCFD 186 · 2025 Application Granted — Contempt Found AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from breach of temporary injunction order in underlying succession dispute
Decision
Respondents found in contempt; sale transaction declared null and void; title to be reinstated to estate administrators; sellers to refund purchase price; fines imposed

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 respondents in contempt for selling estate property in violation of a temporary injunction. The sale was declared null and void, the title was ordered reinstated to the estate administrators, and the sellers were directed to refund the purchase price. Each of the first five respondents was fined UGX 5,000,000 or face six months imprisonment.

Outcome

Respondents found in contempt; sale transaction declared null and void; title to be reinstated to estate administrators; sellers to refund purchase price; fines imposed

Facts

The applicant claimed to be a beneficiary of the estate of the late Nseribetya Mulindwa Eriasafu and filed Civil Suit No. 104 of 2022 seeking his share. On 23 October 2024, the court granted a temporary injunction in MA No. 1211 of 2024 restraining the estate administrators (1st-5th respondents) from selling or transferring any estate property pending determination of the main suit. Despite this order and despite meeting with the applicant and his lawyers on 14 March 2025 where the injunction was discussed, the administrators sold land comprised in Kibuga Block 9, Plot 266 to the 6th respondent (Full Gospel Churches) for UGX 525,000,000 on 5 May 2025. The sale occurred on the same day the parties signed a consent to conduct a DNA test to establish the applicant's paternity claim. The 6th respondent's lawyer, who attended the March meeting and advised against dealing with estate property, witnessed the transfer forms.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents are in contempt of court order in MA No. 1211 of 2024
  2. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • The Respondents are hereby found to be in contempt of the Court Order issued on 23rd October, 2024.
  • The 7th respondent is directed to cancel the name of the 6th respondent from the certificate of title for the land comprised in Kibuga Block 9, Plot 266 and to reinstate the same in the names of the Administrators of the estate of the late Nseribetya Mulindwa.
  • The transaction of the land transfer in respect of the estate property by the respondents is hereby declared null and void.
  • The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents are directed to refund to the 6th respondent a sum of 525,000,000/= being the total consideration for the sale of the land comprised in Kibuga Block 9, plot 266 land at Kagugube, which forms part of the estate of the late Nseribetya Mulindwa Eriasafu.
  • The 1st to 5th respondents shall each deposit into this court a fine of 5,000,000/= (five million Uganda shillings) for contempt of court orders or in default, serve 6 months imprisonment.
  • The respondents shall bear the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements Required for Proof
To establish contempt of court, three elements must be proved: (i) the existence of a lawful order; (ii) the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order; and (iii) the potential contemnor's failure to comply with the order, i.e., disobedience.
Contempt of Court — Knowledge of Court Order — Constructive Knowledge
Knowledge of a court order may be established where a party meets with the applicant and his lawyers and is informed of the pending suit and the court's restraining orders, even if the party was not originally served with the order. Such knowledge is sufficient to ground a finding of contempt if the party subsequently acts contrary to the order.
Contempt of Court — Defences — Issues for Main Suit
Issues raised in defence to a contempt application that are yet to be determined in the main suit (such as whether property forms part of an estate or whether a claimant is a beneficiary) do not constitute a defence to contempt. The question is whether the party disobeyed a subsisting court order, not whether the underlying claim will ultimately succeed.
Contempt of Court — Remedies — Reversal of Transaction
Where a party sells property in contempt of a temporary injunction restraining such sale, the court may declare the transaction null and void, order the title reinstated to the original registered owners, and direct the sellers to refund the purchase price to the buyer.
Contempt of Court — Punishment — Fines and Imprisonment
The court may punish contempt by imposing a fine payable to the court, with imprisonment in default. The power to punish for contempt must be exercised with great care and caution, but is necessary to maintain the integrity and authority of the judicial system and uphold the rule of law.
Temporary Injunctions — Scope — Estate Property
A temporary injunction restraining administrators from dealing with 'any other properties forming part of the estate' extends to all estate property, not only the specific plots named in the order. Administrators who sell estate property not specifically named in the injunction but falling within the general description act in contempt of the order.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Richard Odoi Adome v Uganda Electricity Generation Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1088 of 2022)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)
  • Betty Kizito v Dickson Nsubuga and 6 Others (Civil Application No. 25 & 26 of 2021)
  • Nsagirano v Col. Kaka Bagyenda and Another [2021] UGHC 23
  • Attorney General v Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka (Miscellaneous Application No. 843 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Manyi Grace v Marion Mirembe and Others (Miscellaneous Application 5077 of 2025) [2025] UGHCFD 186 (10 October 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.