Wakilii

Nile Construction General Contractors Ltd & Anor v Kanyeihamba (Miscellaneous Application No. 405 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCLD 31 · 2016 Application Granted — Respondent in Contempt AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for committal for contempt of court order arising from Civil Suit No. 024 of 2016
Decision
Vesting order issued to applicants; respondent found in contempt and fined UGX 10 million plus interest and costs

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

Court held the respondent in contempt for willfully disobeying a court order requiring him to deposit signed transfer forms and certificate of title for leased land. Instead of imprisoning the elderly respondent, court issued a vesting order granting the applicants a 99-year leasehold interest in the 5.16 acres and imposed a punitive fine of UGX 10 million plus interest.

Outcome

Vesting order issued to applicants; respondent found in contempt and fined UGX 10 million plus interest and costs

Facts

The applicants and respondent entered a lease agreement for 5.16 acres of mailo land in Busiro Block 397. The applicants paid deposits totaling the agreed consideration of UGX 145 million per acre. The final installment of UGX 198,200,000 fell due in December 2015. The respondent, who had been hospitalized in the UK, refused to sign transfer forms upon his return, disputing the exact location of the 5.16 acres. The applicants instituted Civil Suit No. 024 of 2016. After mediation failed, the court on 31 March 2016 ordered both parties to deposit their respective obligations with the Deputy Registrar on 4 April 2016: the applicants to deposit the money and the respondent to deposit signed transfer forms and the certificate of title. The applicants complied. The respondent appeared before the Deputy Registrar on 4 April 2016 but instead of complying, attempted to re-open the case by explaining matters afresh. He filed a review application which was dismissed. He continued to refuse compliance.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent is in contempt of the court order in Civil Suit No. 24 of 2016.
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • A vesting order issued vesting in the applicants a leasehold interest of 5.16 acres for 99 years in land comprised in Busiro Block 397 Plot 1802 and Plot 1692 land at Bweya as per the Survey Report of the Commissioner Land Mapping & Surveys dated 12 July 2016.
  • The Registrar of Titles is directed to issue the said leasehold certificate of title for 99 years to the applicants on the said mailo land.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay to the applicants a fine of UGX 10,000,000 as a punitive measure.
  • The fine attracts interest at court rate from the date of this ruling until payment in full.
  • In the event of failure to pay the fine, it shall be enforced by way of civil debt recovery.
  • The respondent shall pay costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Definition and Purpose
Contempt of court is a disregard of or disobedience to the rules or orders of a judicial body, or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language. The purpose of contempt is to ensure that justice is done and to prohibit acts that obstruct the smooth administration of justice.
Contempt of Court — Obligation to Obey Court Orders — No Self-Judging of Validity
A party who knows of a court order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it. It would be most dangerous to hold that suitors or their solicitors could themselves judge whether an order was null or void or irregular. A party who disagrees with an order must apply to the court to have it discharged; as long as the order exists it must not be disobeyed.
Contempt of Court — Remedies — Preference for Liberty Over Committal
Courts take a lenient view in favour of the liberty of the individual and will only commit a contemnor if he or she has shown very contemptuous and flagrant disrespect to court. If there is a reasonable alternative method available of ensuring that a court order is obeyed which does not involve committing the contemnor to prison, that alternative should be preferred.
Remedies — Vesting Order — Contempt for Refusal to Execute Transfer
Where a party in contempt of court refuses to execute transfer forms and hand over a certificate of title in compliance with a specific performance order, the court may issue a vesting order vesting the leasehold interest directly in the applicants and directing the Registrar of Titles to issue the certificate of title to the applicants.
Contempt of Court — Functus Officio — Improper Attempt to Re-open Case
Where a court has finally pronounced itself on a matter as expressed in a court order, a party cannot thereafter request the Deputy Registrar to re-open the case or stay the Judge's orders. The Deputy Registrar is not seized with power in her judicial capacity to stay orders of a Judge and refer the matter back. An attempt to do so constitutes contempt.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • The Proctor & Gamble Co v Kyole James Mutisho & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 135 of 2012)
  • Jennison v Baker [1972] 1 All ER 997
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] All ER 567
  • Church vs. Cremer (1 Corp Jemp 342)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Anor v Edward Musisi (Civil Appeal No. 158 of 2010)
  • Wildlife Lodges Ltd v County Council of Narok & Anor [2005] EA 344
  • Monica Mirembe Mukooza v K. Margaret (Miscellaneous Application No. 43 of 2013)
  • Madhvani v Madhvani [1989] 1 KALR 100

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nile Construction General Contractors Ltd & Anor v Kanyeihamba (Miscellaneous Application No. 405 of 2016) [2016] UGHCLD 31 (22 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.