Wakilii

Nambi v Lwanga (Miscellaneous Application No. 213 of 2017)

High Court · [2017] UGHCEBD 1 · 2017 Application Granted — Contempt Found AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court and related orders arising from execution proceedings following an eviction order
Decision
Respondent found in contempt of court and ordered to vacate land within two days or face civil imprisonment; illegal structures to be demolished; permanent injunction issued

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 a judgment debtor who re-occupies land after lawful eviction and erects structures thereon, despite failed appeals, is in contempt of court. The elements of contempt—existence of a lawful order, knowledge of the order, and disobedience—were established. The court ordered the respondent to vacate within two days or face committal to civil prison, demolition of illegal structures, payment of exemplary damages and a fine for contempt, and issued a permanent injunction against further trespass.

Outcome

Respondent found in contempt of court and ordered to vacate land within two days or face civil imprisonment; illegal structures to be demolished; permanent injunction issued

Facts

The applicant obtained judgment declaring the respondent a trespasser on her land (Folio 41, Plot 2344, Busaabala) in proceedings originating in Makindye Chief Magistrate's Court in 2008. The High Court reversed the initial judgment in favour of the applicant, and the Court of Appeal upheld this finding. A warrant for vacant possession was issued and executed, evicting the respondent. Despite the eviction and dismissal of his application to appeal to the Supreme Court, the respondent re-entered the land and erected structures. The applicant applied for contempt proceedings, which the respondent's counsel failed to defend, providing no affidavit in reply. The application proceeded ex parte after counsel for the respondent indicated he would be in Masaka and service was effected on his advocates.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent is in contempt of court.
  2. What remedies are available to the Applicant.

Orders

  • It is declared that the Respondent was in contempt of court orders by re-occupying the Applicant's land after he was evicted and by erecting illegal structures thereon.
  • The Respondent is directed to leave the Applicant's land within two days of this ruling, failure of which he will be arrested and committed to Civil Prison.
  • The illegal structures erected on the Applicant's land by the Respondent to be demolished.
  • The Respondent to pay UGX 6,000,000 to the Applicant as exemplary damages with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of this ruling until payment in full.
  • The Respondent to pay UGX 2,000,000 for contempt of court.
  • A permanent injunction is issued against the Respondent to keep away from the Applicant's land.
  • Costs of the Application are granted to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements Required for Finding of Contempt
Before any action can be found to amount to contempt of court, three principles must be established: (1) existence of a lawful order; (2) the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order; and (3) the potential contemnor's failure to comply with the order, that is, disobedience of the order.
Contempt of Court — Duty to Comply Regardless of View of Order's Validity
A party who knows of an order, regardless of whether in that party's view the order is null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it by reason of what that party regards the order to be. The order must be complied with in totality in all circumstances, subject to the party's right to challenge the order. It is the duty of the party who finds compliance not possible to move the court and bring reasons for non-compliance to the court's attention.
Contempt of Court — Remedies for Civil Contempt
Civil contempt is punishable by way of committal, sequestration, fine, or injunction against the contemnor. In Uganda, although there is no equivalent of the English Contempt of Court Act 1981, courts exercise jurisdiction in conformity with the common law and doctrines of equity to punish disobedience of civil orders.
Contempt of Court — Committal as Coercive Rather Than Punitive Measure
Imprisonment for civil contempt is properly ordered where the defendant has refused to do an affirmative act required by a mandatory order. If the contempt consists in refusal to do something ordered for the benefit of the opposite party, the contemnor may be committed until compliance. The order in such a case is not punishment but is coercive to compel the contemnor to act in accordance with the court order.
Exemplary Damages — Award for Contemptuous Conduct
It may be appropriate in contempt proceedings to award exemplary damages to the applicant. Exemplary damages are by their nature intended to punish the defendant for conduct that warrants such sanction, distinct from compensatory damages for actual loss suffered.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (10)

  • Mutambo Wepukhulu v Wasswa Balunywa & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 276 of 2012)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Jacobson Uganda Power Plant Co. Ltd v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 042 of 2010)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Hadkinson vs. Hadkinson
  • Re Contempt of Dougherty 429, Michigan 81, 97 and (1987)
  • A vs. B [1974] INZLR 673 and 677
  • Loomis vs. Rohan (1974) 46 DLR (3d) 423
  • Ntabgoba vs. Editor in Chief of the New Vision and Another [2004] 2EA 344
  • Bhadelia Habib Ltd vs. Commissioner General of Uganda Revenue Authority [1997 - 2001] UCL 2001
  • Ahmad Ibrahim Bholm v Care General Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nambi v Lwanga (Miscellaneous Application No. 213 of 2017) [2017] UGHCEBD 1 (1 March 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.