Wakilii

Namondo and 3 Others v Kakayi and Another (Misc Cause No. 337 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 254 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a ruling dismissing a revision application, arising from contempt proceedings in the Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Application dismissed with related pending application overtaken by events

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 High Court dismissed an application for review brought by applicants who were in unpurged contempt of court orders dating back ten years. The court held that litigants in wilful unpurged contempt cannot be heard by the court in subsequent applications related to the contempt matter. The court further held that the application was barred by law because it sought to challenge the merits of a decision rather than demonstrate a self-evident error apparent on the face of the record, which is the limited scope of a review application under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Application dismissed with related pending application overtaken by events

Facts

The applicants brought an application for review of a ruling that had dismissed their revision application on preliminary objections. The revision application itself had arisen from contempt proceedings in the Chief Magistrate's Court (MA No. 049 of 2014), in which the applicants were found in contempt of court orders on 24 October 2014. The applicants did not appeal the contempt finding. They instead filed a revision application (Civil Revision No. 002 of 2015) in the High Court, which was dismissed. The applicants then sought to review that dismissal. The respondents raised preliminary objections, arguing that the applicants were in wilful unpurged contempt of court and thus could not be heard, and that the application was an abuse of process. The contempt orders had been issued approximately ten years before the current application and remained uncomplied with. The applicants argued that the trial was marred with illegality and that they were not directed to any particular acts they were accused of not complying with.

Issues

  1. Whether applicants who are in unpurged contempt of court can bring a fresh application before the court.
  2. Whether the application for review is barred by law as it seeks to re-argue the merits rather than demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record.
  3. Whether the court has jurisdiction to review a ruling as opposed to a judgment.

Orders

  • Application dismissed on the ground that applicants are in continued contempt of court orders and have not purged themselves thereof.
  • Application dismissed for being barred in law and in abuse of court process.
  • Respondent's preliminary objections upheld.
  • Miscellaneous Application No. 342 of 2021 is overtaken by events.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Effect of Unpurged Contempt — Jurisdiction to Hear Subsequent Applications
A court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application brought by a party who is in wilful unpurged contempt of court orders, particularly where the application relates to the same matter in which the contempt arose.
Civil Procedure — Court Orders — Binding Effect — Duty to Obey Pending Successful Challenge
A court order that has not been successfully challenged or discharged is binding on the parties and must be obeyed whether in the eyes of the party contesting it the order appears irregular or illegal.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments and Orders — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Definition and Scope
An error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and should not require elaborate argument to be established. It is an error which strikes one on mere looking at the record and does not require a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments and Orders — Limited Purpose — Distinction from Appeal
An application for review has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to become an appeal in disguise. A review should not seek to challenge the merits of a decision but rather irregularities in the process towards the decision. Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be a ground for review but could be a proper ground for appeal.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments and Orders — Jurisdiction — Review of Rulings versus Judgments
Under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where the ground for review is an error apparent on the face of the record, the court has jurisdiction to review both judgments and orders, and such review is not restricted to the judge who made the original order.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Edward Musisi (MA No. 158 of 2012)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (CA No. 94 of 1981)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] All ER
  • Church v Cremer (1 Coop Temp Cott 342)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Ref No. 8 of 2012)
  • Chuck v Cremer [1896] ER 885
  • FX Mubuuke v UEB (High Court Misc. Application No. 9 of 2005)
  • Nyamogo & Nyamogo Advocates v Kago [2001] 2 EA 173
  • Farm Inputs Care Centre Limited Versus Klein Karoo Seeds Marketing (Pty) Ltd

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namondo and 3 Others v Kakayi and Another (Misc Cause No. 337 of 2021) [2022] UGHC 254 (7 December 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.