Wakilii

Nyanzi v Mugerwa & 8 Others (Miscellaneous Application 641 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 229 · 2024 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 order
Decision
Respondents found in contempt of court order and ordered to comply with the injunction and pay a fine of UGX 5,000,000

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the respondents were in contempt of the temporary injunction order dated 22nd June 2022. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the order had been replaced by a subsequent order dated 28th June 2022, as no evidence was provided that the earlier order had been recalled, cancelled or set aside. The respondents knew of the order, had the ability to comply, but violated it by collecting rent from tenants in breach of the injunction restraining them from interfering with the applicant's tenants.

Outcome

Respondents found in contempt of court order and ordered to comply with the injunction and pay a fine of UGX 5,000,000

Facts

The applicant obtained a temporary injunction on 22nd June 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No. 228 of 2022 restraining the respondents from trespassing on property in Kiyaga Zone, Bwaise Kawempe and from interfering with the applicant's tenants or collecting rent. The respondents were also restrained from including the property in the estate of their late mother Nakimuli Rehema pending determination of the main suit. The applicant alleged that despite this order, the respondents continued to collect rent from tenants on the suit property. The respondents argued that the order dated 22nd June 2022 had been recalled and replaced by a new order dated 28th June 2022, and that they were following the Administrator General's directions regarding temporary distribution of the estate. The applicant presented receipts and other evidence showing ongoing rent collection by the respondents.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents are in contempt of a court order dated 22nd June 2022.

Orders

  • The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents are hereby compelled to obey Court Orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 228 of 2022 dated the 22nd day of June 2022.
  • The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents shall altogether pay a fine of UGX 5,000,000 (Five million shillings only) for their contempt of Court Orders.
  • Application for exemplary and general damages dismissed.
  • No order as to costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements to Establish Contempt
To establish contempt of court, the applicant must prove (i) the existence of a lawful order, (ii) the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order, and (iii) the potential contemnor's failure to comply with the order.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Disobedience of Court Orders — Duty to Comply Even If Order Believed to Be Invalid
A party who knows of a court order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it. As long as the order exists, it must not be disobeyed. A party's course of action, if aggrieved by an order, is to apply to the court for it to be discharged.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Burden of Proof — Proof of Willful Breach
An element of contempt is that the conduct in question must have been willfully committed. Intent may be inferred from the circumstances accompanying the conduct and need not be proven directly. The applicant must state with sufficient particularity what the alleged contemnor has done or omitted to do which constitutes contempt to enable the respondent to meet the accusation.
Civil Procedure — Court Orders — Conflict Between Court Order and Administrative Directive — Precedence of Court Order
Where a court order exists and is in conflict with an administrative directive, the court order takes precedence over all other competing directives by any other authority. Parties cannot claim to be following administrative orders where there is a subsisting lawful court order to the contrary.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (8)

  • Megha Industries Ltd v Comform Uganda Ltd (HCMC No. 21 of 2014)
  • Geraldine Busulwa Ssali v National Social Security Fund and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 116 of 2016)
  • Church Vs Cremer (1 Coop Temp Cottb 342)
  • Uganda Super League v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 73 of 2013)
  • Andre Paul Terence Ambar Appeal No. 46 of 1935 -v- the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago) [19361 1 All ER 704, [19361 AC 322
  • Hadkinson vs Hadkinson (1952] All ER
  • Odoi Odome v Uganda Electricity Generation Company (Miscellaneous Application No. 1088 of 2022)
  • Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v. Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98; 60 ALJR 608; 66 ALR 577

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyanzi_v_Mugerwa_&_8_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_641_of_2024)_[2024]_UGHCLD_229_(27_September_2024)
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.