Wakilii

Nalumansi & 3 Ors v Sserunjogi & 12 Ors (Misc. Application No. 2052 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCLD 7 · 2016 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court orders arising from an interlocutory injunction in a land dispute
Decision
1st Respondent found in contempt and ordered to remove wire mesh fence within 7 days or face imprisonment; 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents absolved

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 1st respondent was in contempt of the interim order dated 24 November 2015 by constructing a wire mesh fence after the order was made. Construction completed before the order (perimeter wall and security house) did not constitute contempt. The court ordered removal of the wire mesh fence within seven days, failing which the 1st respondent would be arrested and imprisoned. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents were absolved as no evidence showed they carried out fresh construction after the order.

Outcome

1st Respondent found in contempt and ordered to remove wire mesh fence within 7 days or face imprisonment; 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Respondents absolved

Facts

The applicants brought a contempt application arising from Civil Suit No. 829/2015. On 24 November 2015, the Deputy Registrar visited the locus in quo and made an interim order that there should be no further construction until the trial judge directed otherwise, and that an access road dispute should await the trial judge's directions. The applicants alleged that the respondents continued construction in violation of this order. The 1st respondent constructed a wire mesh fence on fresh foundation after the order was made. The respondents claimed that some construction (perimeter wall, security house) predated the order. Photographs taken during the Deputy Registrar's visit corroborated that the perimeter wall and security house existed before the order.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents were in contempt of the court order dated 24 November 2015.
  2. Whether a lawful court order existed and was knowingly violated by the respondents.
  3. Whether fresh construction was carried out after the court order was made.

Orders

  • The 1st Respondent to remove the wire mesh fence within 7 days from the date of this Order.
  • Failure to remove the wire mesh fence within the given time will result in arrest and imprisonment until compliance with the Court Order.
  • No damages awarded to the Applicant.
  • No order to open the access road until the head suit is heard and disposed of on its merits.
  • No orders made regarding military officers allegedly threatening the Applicant as no evidence showed they were agents or employees of the Respondents.
  • Preliminary objections dismissed as the application was resolved on merits.
  • Costs in this application shall abide the outcome of the head suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Burden of Proof
In an application seeking orders for contempt of court, the applicant must prove that there existed a lawful court order and that the respondent knew of the existence of the court order and violated it.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Acts Predating Court Order
For contempt to occur, there must be an existing order before the act complained of occurred. Construction completed before a court order was made does not constitute contempt of that order.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Obedience to Court Orders
A party who knows of a court order, regardless of whether in that party's view the order is null, valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it. A party cannot choose whether or not to comply with an order on grounds of ambiguity or lack of clarity; the order must be complied with in totality in all circumstances, subject to the party's right to challenge the order by way of appeal, review or revision.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Remedies — Civil Contempt
Imprisonment for civil contempt is properly ordered where the defendant has refused to do an affirmative act required by a previous order which in form or substance was mandatory in character. Where contempt consists in refusal to do something ordered for the benefit of the opposite party, the process is civil and the party stands committed until compliance. The order in such a case is not punishment but coercion to compel compliance.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Edward Musisi (Misc. Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Megha Industries (U) Ltd v Conform (U) Ltd (Misc. Application No. 196 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nalumansi & 3 Ors v Sserunjogi & 12 Ors (Misc. Application No. 2052_2016) [2016] UGHCLD 7 (25 November 2016)
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.