Mukhono v Kimono Kimaswa and 13 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 requires a lawful, subsisting order; here the interim stay order had a three-month lifespan and had expired before the application was brought, and the actions complained of had occurred before the order was made. The court further held that the supporting affidavit was defective because the deponent's power of attorney, construed strictly, did not specify the suit in which he was authorised to act. Finally, the application disclosed no cause of action against respondents who were not parties to the application from which the order arose. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Outcome

Contempt application dismissed; preliminary objections upheld

Facts

The applicant filed Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2021 and secured an interim order maintaining the status quo of suit land (Plot 9) vide Civil Application No. 93 of 2021. The ruling, delivered on 6 May 2021, provided that the stay would remain operative for three months, within which the parties were to take urgent steps to fix the substantive application or appeal for hearing. The extracted order stated the status quo was to be maintained until 7 June 2021 or further orders. The parties took no steps to fix the matter and the interim order was not extended, so it lapsed. The applicant alleged the 14 respondents had jointly and severally flouted the order and brought an application for contempt of court. The respondents raised preliminary objections that the order had expired, that the supporting affidavit was defective because the deponent's power of attorney did not specify the relevant suit, and that no cause of action was disclosed against respondents who were not parties to Civil Application No. 93 of 2021. Some actions complained of, such as the second respondent's registration on the title, occurred 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 in support was valid where the deponent's power of attorney did not specify the suit in which he was authorised to act.
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] E.A 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.