Wakilii

Nalumansi & 3 Ors v Bukenya &Anor (Misc Application No. 0872 of 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGHCLD 241 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for contempt of court arising from Civil Suit No. 2829 of 2015
Decision
Application for contempt dismissed for failure to prove allegations

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 dismissed the contempt application for want of proof. An interim order dated 24th November 2015 had directed no further construction pending the trial judge's directions. The applicants alleged ongoing construction by the respondents. The court held that the burden of proving contempt rested on the applicants. The respondents' affidavits specifically denied the alleged conduct. The applicants' evidence consisted of bare assertions without the specific proof required to establish contempt on the required standard.

Outcome

Application for contempt dismissed for failure to prove allegations

Facts

The applicants sought orders for contempt of court. A previous court order dated 24th November 2015 in Misc. Application No. 1032 of 2015 had been issued directing no further construction of new areas until other directions by the Judge. The order was stated to be interim for one week, pending directions of the trial judge. The applicants alleged through the affidavit of Nkumbi Godfrey that the respondents continued with their developments in breach of this order. The respondents, through affidavits of Bukenya and Ngobye Edward, denied the allegations of contempt.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents were in contempt of the court order dated 24th November 2015 which directed no further construction in the new area until the Judge directed otherwise.
  2. Whether the applicants proved contempt on the required standard.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Burden of Proof
The burden of proving contempt of court rests on the party alleging contempt, who must produce specific evidence and proof sufficient to establish the alleged disobedience of the court order.
Civil Procedure — Obedience to Court Orders — General Principle
All court orders, whether irregular, null and void, must be obeyed.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Edward Musisi (Court of Appeal Misc. Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Worldlife Lodges Limited versus County Council of Narok and Another (2005)2 EA.334 (HC/C)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nalumansi & 3 Ors v Bukenya &Anor (Misc Application No. 0872 of 2017) [2017] UGHCLD 241 (23 October 2017)
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.