Wakilii

Nabbona and 2 Others v Mukasa and 2 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1072 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCLD 147 · 2021 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a Registrar's ruling holding applicants in contempt of an interim injunction order
Decision
Review application granted; contempt orders stayed pending locus visit

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 High Court granted the application for review, finding that the learned Registrar's ruling holding the applicants in contempt was issued without proper evidentiary foundation. The court held that where respondents did not adduce evidence of the status quo at the time the interim order was granted and did not rebut the applicants' affidavit evidence showing pre-existing developments, and where the Registrar relied on inconclusive photographic evidence without conducting a locus visit, there was sufficient cause to review the contempt finding. The orders were stayed pending a locus visit.

Outcome

Review application granted; contempt orders stayed pending locus visit

Facts

The applicants applied for and obtained an interim injunction on 13 September 2018 maintaining the status quo on suit land. The respondents subsequently filed an application alleging the applicants were in contempt of that order. On 24 September 2020, the learned Registrar held the applicants in contempt and ordered each to pay UGX 10,000,000. The applicants sought review, contending they had maintained the status quo, that their developments pre-existed the interim order, and that the respondents misled the court with photographs suggesting post-order developments. The respondents did not file affidavits in rejoinder to the applicants' evidence in the original contempt application, nor did they reply to the review application.

Issues

  1. Whether this application meets the conditions for review under the law.
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The orders of the learned Registrar as far as the applicants herein are concerned are hereby stayed, pending provision of further and better particulars, provable through a locus visit.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Review of Orders — Grounds for Review — Error Apparent on Face of Record
An application for review may succeed where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which must be so manifest and clear that no court would permit such error to remain on record.
Civil Procedure — Evidence — Unchallenged Affidavit Evidence — Evidential Effect
Where no affidavit in reply is filed, the affidavit in support is taken to be unchallenged and truthful, subject to whether the contents pass the test of evidence and are cogent and of probative value. Facts adduced in affidavit evidence which are neither denied nor rebutted are presumed to be admitted.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Burden of Proof — Requirement for Proper Evidentiary Foundation
A finding of contempt of a court order must be based on proper evidence establishing breach of the order. Where the applicant alleging contempt fails to adduce evidence of the status quo at the time the original order was granted and relies on inconclusive photographic evidence without a locus visit, the contempt finding lacks proper evidentiary foundation and is liable to be set aside on review.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (5)

  • Re Nakivubo Chemists (U) Ltd [1979] HCB 12
  • Yusuf v Nokorach [1971] EA 104
  • Mubuuke v UCB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)
  • Tororo District Administration v Andalalapo Ltd [1997] KALR 126
  • Ahimbisibwe v World Food Program & Others [1998] IV KALR 32

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nabbona_and_2_Others_v_Mukasa_and_2_Others_(Civil_Miscellaneous_Application_No._1072_of_2021)_[2021]_UGHCLD_147_(20_October_2021)
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.