Wakilii

Mirembe Mukooza v Kainza (M.A No.43 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGHCLD 10 · 2013 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for committal for contempt of court arising from alleged breach of temporary injunction
Decision
Respondent committed to civil prison for two weeks and ordered to cease violations of the temporary injunction 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

The court held that the respondent violated a valid temporary injunction by continuing construction on suit land despite being served with the court order and police intervention. The respondent falsely claimed the order was forged and showed contemptuous disregard for the court order. The court committed the respondent to civil prison for two weeks and ordered her to stop violating the injunction.

Outcome

Respondent committed to civil prison for two weeks and ordered to cease violations of the temporary injunction pending determination of the main suit.

Facts

The applicant obtained a temporary injunction from Justice Aweri Opio restraining the respondent from carrying out further construction on suit land at Nsambya. The respondent initially complied but during the Christmas season of 2012 commenced construction of a permanent building and brick fence. When the Police Land Protection Unit attempted to enforce the injunction, the respondent claimed the court order was forged and directed her workers to ignore it. Construction continued with building materials deposited on site. The applicant applied for committal for contempt. The respondent denied constructing and claimed she was only maintaining school standards as required by KCCA. Evidence including police affidavit and photographs showed ongoing construction.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent violated a temporary injunction restraining construction on the suit land.
  2. Whether the respondent should be committed to civil prison for contempt of court.

Orders

  • The respondent is detained in civil prison for two weeks for disobeying a court order.
  • The respondent shall stop the violation of the court order forthwith until the main suit is heard and determined or until further orders from this court.
  • The respondent shall bear the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Breach of Injunction — Committal to Civil Prison
A court may order detention in civil prison for up to six months where a party disobeys or breaches the terms of an injunction, and the court should exercise this power where the contemner shows contemptuous and flagrant disrespect to the court order.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Duty to Obey — Duration of Obligation
An injunction must be obeyed while it lasts, and there should be no excuse for anyone to disobey a court order during its subsistence.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Alternative Remedies — Liberty of the Individual
Courts take a lenient view in favour of the liberty of the individual and will only commit a contemner to prison if he or she has shown very contemptuous and flagrant disrespect to the court; where a reasonable alternative method of ensuring compliance exists that does not involve imprisonment, that alternative should be preferred.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Knowledge of Court Order — Constructive Knowledge
Where a party participated in inter partes proceedings that resulted in an injunction order, contested the application through counsel, and was served with the order, that party cannot claim ignorance of the order to avoid liability for contempt.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Madhvani v Madhvani (Civil Suit No. 774 of 1988)
  • Sentongo and Another v Shell (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 31 of 1993)
  • Ugantico Supermarket v Registrar of Titles (High Court Civil Suit No. 256 of 1993)
  • Samee Khan V Bindu Khan SLP (C) No. 11992 of 1998

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mirembe Mukooza v Kainza (M.A No.43 of 2013) [2013] UGHCLD 10 (12 February 2013)
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.