Wakilii

Nalongo Estates Limited v Kisaka and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1923 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 151 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from Originating Summons seeking enforcement of court orders regarding lease extensions
Decision
Application for contempt dismissed; respondents directed to complete survey and report within 45 days

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 declined to hold the respondents in contempt, finding that their non-compliance with orders to grant lease extensions was not wilful disobedience but rather contingent on a prior survey by implementing agencies (UNRA and UMEME) which had not been completed. The court directed the respondents to liaise with implementing agencies to conduct the survey and report back within 45 days.

Outcome

Application for contempt dismissed; respondents directed to complete survey and report within 45 days

Facts

Nalongo Estates Limited filed Originating Summons No. OS of 2020 against Kampala Capital City Authority seeking execution of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 19 May 2020 regarding certain properties affected by the Kampala Flyover Project. On 16 June 2021, the court ordered KCCA to grant full term lease extensions for the affected properties. The applicant subsequently brought a contempt application alleging that the respondents had disobeyed and refused to implement the court orders. The respondents contended that compliance was contingent on Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) first conducting a survey to determine which portions of land were required for the flyover project, and that this survey had not yet been completed. The court's own order at paragraph (f) had made the lease renewals contingent upon the implementing agencies determining the necessary space required for the project.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents are in contempt of court orders issued vide Originating Summons No. OS of 2020.
  2. What remedies are available to the applicant?

Orders

  • The respondents to liaise with the implementing agencies to conduct the survey of the suit property in execution of the orders made vide OS No. 0005 of 2020.
  • The respondents to present a report to court on the execution of its orders within 45 days after delivery of this ruling.
  • The period of disobedience of the court order will start counting after 45 days.
  • Each party to meet their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements — Wilful Disobedience Required
Before any action can be found to amount to contempt of court, it must be established that there is a lawful court order, that the potential contemnor was aware of the court order, and that the contemnor failed to comply with the order. Disobedience must be wilful; if non-compliance is based on interpretation of the court's order or circumstances beyond the party's control, it does not amount to wilful disobedience.
Contempt of Court — Conditional Orders — Performance Contingent on Third Parties
Where a court order is expressly made contingent upon performance by a third party or implementing agency, failure by the ordered party to comply due to non-performance by that third party does not constitute wilful disobedience amounting to contempt, provided the ordered party has a credible excuse for non-compliance.
Contempt of Court — Duty to Inform Court of Non-Compliance
Where a party finds compliance with a court order not possible for genuine reasons, that party has a responsibility to move the court and bring to the court's attention the reasons for non-compliance, rather than waiting until a contempt application is filed.
Inherent Powers — Section 38 Judicature Act — Ensuring Complete Determination
Under section 38 of the Judicature Act Cap. 73, the court is vested with powers to make the necessary orders as it thinks fit in respect of any matter, legal or equitable, so that as far as possible all matters in controversy between the parties may be completely and finally determined, and so that all multiplicities of legal proceedings concerning those matters are avoided.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (5)

  • Megha Industries Ltd v Conform Uganda Ltd (HCMC No. 27 of 2014)
  • Mutambo Wepukhulu v Wessure Balunguta and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 276 of 2012)
  • Mahinderjit Singh Butta v Union of India & Others 7 A NO. 70 of 2010
  • Indian Airports Employees Union v Ranjan Chatterjee & Another AIR 1990 SC 580; 1990(2) SCC 337
  • Makula International Ltd v H.E Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1981)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nalongo_Estates_Limited_v_Kisaka_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1923_of_2021)_[2022]_UGHCLD_151_(27_July_2022)
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.