Wakilii

Nakandi v Katongole (Misc. Application No. 252 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCLD 43 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for committal for contempt of court arising from alleged disobedience of a temporary injunction order
Decision
Application for committal for contempt dismissed on finding that respondent did not disobey any valid court order

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 was not in contempt of court orders. The transfer of plots occurred between 12 May 2017 (when a consent judgment was entered) and 20 November 2017 (when that consent was set aside). During that period, no court order forbade the respondent from acting. The applicant failed to prove that transfers occurred after the consent judgment was set aside and the temporary injunction reinstated.

Outcome

Application for committal for contempt dismissed on finding that respondent did not disobey any valid court order

Facts

The applicant had obtained a temporary injunction on 5 May 2016 restraining the respondent from transferring or developing land comprised in Kyadondo Block 223, Plot 766 (now subdivided into multiple plots) at Namugongo pending disposal of the main suit. On 12 May 2017, the parties entered into a consent judgment disposing of the main suit. On 17 May 2017, the respondent transferred plots 4975 and 4979 to third parties. On 20 November 2017, the consent judgment was set aside and the court reinstated the temporary injunction. The applicant then brought this application seeking committal of the respondent for contempt, alleging that the respondent had disobeyed the reinstated injunction by transferring plots and continuing developments on the suit property.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent acted in contempt of the Court orders.
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements Required for Proof
To prove contempt of court, three conditions must be satisfied: existence of a lawful order; the contemnor's knowledge of that order; and the potential contemnor's failure to comply with the order.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Obligation to Obey Court Orders
It is a plain and unqualified obligation of every person against or in respect of whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it until that order is discharged. A party who knows of an order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot disobey it.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Timing of Alleged Disobedience
Where a consent judgment supersedes a temporary injunction and is later set aside, acts done in the intervening period when the consent was in force cannot constitute contempt of the reinstated injunction. There must be proof that the alleged contemnor disobeyed the order after it was reinstated.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (4)

  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Anor v Commissioner General - URA (MA No. 42 of 2010)
  • Salmon versus Baker (1972) ALL ER 997
  • Hon. Sitenda v Secretary General of the East African Community (Ref No. 8 of 2012)
  • Wild Life Lodges Ltd versus County Council of Narok and Another (2005) 2 EA344 (HCK)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakandi_v_Katongole_(Misc._Application_No._252_of_2018)_[2018]_UGHCLD_43_(10_May_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.