Wakilii

Mirembe & Anor v Kato & Ors (Misc. Application No. 1347 of 2017)

High Court · [2018] UGHCLD 11 · 2018 Application Granted — Contempt Found AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court order arising from Misc. Application No. 270 of 2013 in Civil Suit No. 27 of 2013
Decision
Respondents found in contempt of court orders, fined, and ordered to restore status quo and cease construction pending determination of the main suit

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 respondents were in contempt of the temporary injunction restraining them from subdividing or interfering with Block 415 Plot 22. The court found that interim orders issued on 22 February 2013 formed part of a continuous legal process with the temporary injunction granted on 8 April 2015, and respondents who subdivided the land and constructed buildings violated the status quo ordered by the court. The court ordered restitution, cessation of construction, and a fine of UGX 15,000,000 to be paid by each respondent.

Outcome

Respondents found in contempt of court orders, fined, and ordered to restore status quo and cease construction pending determination of the main suit

Facts

The applicants obtained a temporary injunction on 8 April 2015 restraining the respondents from dealing with Block 415 Plot 22, which followed an earlier interim order of 22 February 2013. The applicants alleged that respondents defied the court order by subdividing the land and constructing buildings thereon. Respondents denied the allegations, arguing that registrations occurred on 24 November 2015 after the injunction, and that no specific actions had been proved against each respondent individually. Photographic evidence and search statements were presented showing subdivisions and construction activities on the suit property. The main Civil Suit No. 27 of 2013 remained pending determination.

Issues

  1. Whether there was contempt of Court orders by the Respondents.

Orders

  • Application for contempt granted.
  • Each of the Respondents ordered to pay a fine of UGX 15,000,000 (fifteen million shillings only) to the Government of Uganda, to be paid to the account of the Registrar High Court.
  • Restitution of the status quo to the original state before the subdivisions at the time of the interim order of 22 February 2013 ordered, by Respondents taking steps to rectify the certificate accordingly.
  • Respondents ordered to immediately halt any further constructions on the land until completion of the suit.
  • Costs of this application awarded to the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Interim Orders — Continuation with Subsequent Orders
Interim orders issued pending the hearing of an application form part of a continuous legal process with subsequent temporary injunctions arising from the same suit, and parties are bound by the interim order from the date it is issued regardless of when subsequent orders are granted.
Contempt of Court — Knowledge of Order — Obligation to Obey
A party who knows of a court order, regardless of whether in the party's view the order is null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it, and such disobedience constitutes contempt.
Contempt of Court — Proof — Standard of Evidence
The duty to prove contempt lies on he who alleges, and such evidence must be cogent, in accordance with the Evidence Act sections 101, 102 and 105.
Contempt of Court — Remedies — Fine and Restitution
Where parties intentionally disobey a court order restraining interference with property, the court may impose a fine payable to government and order restitution of the status quo rather than committal to civil prison where such would not have the required effect of forcing obedience.
Injunctions — Interim Orders — Effect on Status Quo
Notice of legal proceedings and court orders begins running against parties from the day the matter is registered in court and process served, and an interim order issued on a file affects the entire status quo and sets the legal rights of the parties on notice of its orders and implications.
Judicial Interpretation — Substantive Justice over Technicalities
Courts must not dwell in technicalities when handling cases arising from the same transaction and aimed at stopping the same mischief, in line with the principle of substantive justice envisaged under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Housing Finance Bank v Speedway Auctioneers v Edward Musisi (Misc. Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Church versus Cremer (1 Coop Temp Colt 342)
  • Re Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No.2) (1995) I ALL ER 135 at page 155
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Commissioner General URA (Misc. Application No. 42 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mirembe_&_Anor_v_Kato_&_Ors_(Misc._Application_No._1347_of_2017)_[2018]_UGHCLD_11_(1_February_2018)
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.