Mukhono v Kimono and Others (Civil Application No. 477 of 2022)

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.

Holding

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal dismissed an application for contempt of court. The court held that contempt cannot stand on an expired order: the interim status quo order had a three-month lifespan and had lapsed before the application was filed, and the complained-of acts predated the order. The supporting affidavit was defective because the deponent's Power of Attorney was generic and did not specify the relevant suit, so he lacked authority to swear it. The application also disclosed no cause of action against Respondents who were strangers to the application from which the order arose. All three preliminary objections were upheld and the application dismissed, each party bearing own costs.

Outcome

Application for contempt of court dismissed; three preliminary objections upheld

Facts

The Applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2021 and secured an interim order maintaining the status quo over suit land (Plot 9, Paliisa Road, Mbale) staying execution of High Court orders. The interim order, delivered on 6 May 2021, was expressed to remain in force for three months and required the parties to urgently fix the substantive application or appeal, failing which the court would make appropriate orders. The parties took no steps to fix the substantive matters, so the interim order expired around 10 September 2021. The extracted order bore terms maintaining the status quo only until 7 June 2021. The Applicant alleged the fourteen Respondents jointly and severally flouted the order and applied for contempt, the supporting affidavit being deponed by the holder of a Power of Attorney. The 2nd Respondent had been registered on the certificate of title on 22 April 2021, before the order was made.

Issues

1. Whether an application for contempt of court can be founded on a court order that has expired.
2. Whether the affidavit supporting the application was validly deponed by the holder of a Power of Attorney that did not specify the relevant suit.
3. Whether the application disclosed a cause of action against Respondents who were not parties to the application giving rise to the order.

Orders

• The application is dismissed.
• Each party shall bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (16)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.64(a)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.64(c)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.64(e)
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.39(2)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 26(1)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 26(2)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 27(2)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 28(12)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 50(1)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 126(1)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 128
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.2(2)
• Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions SI 13-10 r.43(1)

Cases cited (4)

• Auto Garage and others Ltd vs. Motokov 1971 E.A 514
• Jeraj Sharif vs. Chotai Fancy [1960] EA 374
• Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
• Midland Bank Limited vs. Reckitt [1893] A.C 170 at 177

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