National Water and Sewerage Corporation v Okecho Don William (Miscellaneous Application 200 of 2021)

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.

Holding

Held that the respondent was in contempt of a temporary injunction restraining further development on suit land. The court found the respondent had admitted constructing a grass-thatched structure and moveable bar in 2022 after the 2020 injunction, and photographic evidence showed the status quo on the land had changed through tree planting, fencing alterations, and brickwork. The court ordered demolition of all post-injunction structures and removal of planted trees and bricks, failing which the respondent would be committed to civil prison until compliance.

Outcome

Respondent found in contempt and ordered to demolish all post-injunction structures and remove trees and bricks within two weeks, failing which he shall be committed to civil prison until compliance

Facts

On 18 August 2020, the High Court issued a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from further development on suit land pending disposal of the main suit (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2020). On 12 October 2021, the applicant's area manager visited the land and observed the respondent had constructed a structure, planted trees, and made other alterations. The respondent admitted replacing an iron sheet fence and constructing a grass-thatched structure and moveable bar in 2022 to entertain clients who rented rooms on the property. The court visited the locus on 21 February 2023 and observed the grass-thatched structure and moveable bar. Photographic evidence showed the iron sheet fencing was not present at the time of the 2020 order but had been erected afterward, and trees had been planted and concealed in bricks.

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 in Miscellaneous Application No. 131 of 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 is ordered to 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.
• The order in Miscellaneous Application No. 131 of 2020 still subsists.
• The above order shall 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.
• Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Judicature Act s.98
• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rules 1 & 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 Rule 2(3)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 Rule 1
• Constitution of Uganda Article 28(2)

Cases cited (9)

• Jack Erasmus Nsangiranabo Vs Col. Kaka Bagyenda & Attorney General Misc. 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)

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