Wakilii

National Water and Sewarage Cooperation (Miscellaneous Application 200 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 146 · 2023 Application Granted — Contempt Found AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from alleged breach of temporary injunction issued in Miscellaneous Application No. 131 of 2020
Decision
Respondent found in contempt and ordered to demolish all post-injunction structures within two weeks or face civil prison

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 found the respondent in contempt of a temporary injunction restraining further development on disputed land. The respondent admitted constructing a grass-thatched structure and moveable bar in 2022 after the 2020 injunction, and photographic evidence showed additional changes including fencing, tree planting, and other structures. The court ordered demolition of all post-injunction structures within two weeks, failing which the respondent would be committed to civil prison. Each party to bear own costs.

Outcome

Respondent found in contempt and ordered to demolish all post-injunction structures within two weeks or face civil prison

Facts

On 18 August 2020, the High Court issued a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from further development on disputed land pending determination of Civil Suit No. 26 of 2020. In October 2021, the applicant's staff visited the property and found new construction including structures, fencing, and planted trees. The respondent admitted that after the injunction he replaced an iron sheet fence blown away by wind and, as confirmed during a locus visit on 21 February 2023, constructed a grass-thatched structure and placed a moveable bar in 2022 to entertain clients renting rooms on the property. Photographic evidence showed significant changes to the property's appearance including new fencing, tree planting covered by concrete blocks, and other structures not present when the injunction was granted.

Issues

  1. Whether there was contempt of Court orders by the Respondent.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • A declaration that the Respondent is in contempt of the court order issued on 18 August 2020.
  • The Respondent is ordered to demolish all structures whether permanent or temporary that were not on the land at the time the order was passed.
  • The Respondent should remove the trees planted after the grant of the order and all the bricks ferried to the suit land after the issuance of the order.
  • This Order should be complied with within two weeks from the date of this Ruling failure of which the Respondent shall be committed to civil prison until he complies.
  • The order in Misc. Application No. 131 of 2020 still subsists.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements Required for Proof
To prove contempt of court, three conditions must be satisfied: (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.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Respect for Court Orders
A party who knows of a court order, whether null, void, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it. Disregard of court orders undermines confidence in the judiciary and must be condemned.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Remedies Available
Civil contempt is punishable by way of civil prison, sequestration, fine, or injunction against the contemnor. The court may order demolition of structures erected in breach of an injunction and commit the contemnor to civil prison for non-compliance.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Court Delays
Omissions or delays by the court in signing and sealing documents should not be visited upon the litigant. Where an application is filed in one year but only signed and sealed by the court in the following year due to court delay, the application is not defective.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (9)

  • Jack Erasmus Nsangiranabo v Col. Kaka Bagyenda & Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 1481)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] All ER 567
  • Rwabunyoro Mugume David v Kalule S. Simon King (Miscellaneous Application No. 45 of 2014)
  • Sanyu Mireiri v Moses Bukenya (HCMA No. 937 of 1997)
  • Nabanja v Nabukalu (Miscellaneous Application No. 250 of 2015)
  • Bagobedde Margret v Kabaseka Ruth Kasujja & 2 Others (HCMA No. 0450 of 2019)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)
  • Jack Erasmus Nsangiranabo v Col. Kaka Bagyenda & Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 671 of 2019)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Jacob Power Plant Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 24 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

National Water and Sewarage Cooperation (Miscellaneous Application 200 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 146 (7 March 2023)
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.