Okwiri and 2 Others v Kaddu Mwesigwa and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 706 of 2020)

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 3rd Applicant lacked locus standi as she was not a beneficiary under the decree. The Respondents were found in contempt of court for blocking the 1st and 2nd Applicants' access to premises allocated to them under a decree ordering M/s Sebco (U) Ltd to reallocate shops. A mandatory injunction was issued requiring handover within one week, with an alternate sentence of three months committal. A fine of UGX 10,000,000 was imposed, payable within one month, with an alternate committal of six months for default.

Outcome

Respondents found in contempt of court and ordered to comply with the decree within specified time limits, failing which committal to civil prison. Fine imposed with alternate committal for non-payment.

Facts

The Applicants sought a contempt order against the Respondents for allegedly disobeying a decree dated 14 May 2015 in H.C.C.S. No. 156 of 2007. The decree identified certain beneficiaries for compensation in Plot 14/18 Nakivubo Place and ordered M/s Sebco (U) Ltd to take proprietary powers to manage, reallocate shops, and where necessary take vacant possession of the commercial building. M/s Sebco (U) Ltd took possession and prepared assignment agreements for the beneficiaries. The Applicants alleged that upon receiving their assignment agreements, the Respondents and their agents denied them access to their allocated premises. The Respondents contended that the building remained in possession of Sebco (U) Ltd and that the Applicants were misleading the court. The 3rd Applicant was excluded from the original decree as a beneficiary.

Issues

1. Whether the 3rd Applicant had locus standi to bring the contempt application.
2. Whether the Respondents disobeyed the decree of Court dated 14 May 2015 in H.C.C.S. No. 156 of 2007.
3. Whether the Respondents' conduct amounted to contempt of court.
4. What remedies should be granted to purge the contempt.

Orders

• The preliminary objection raised by the Respondents succeeds against the 3rd Applicant.
• The application proceeds only as regards the 1st and 2nd Applicants against the Respondents.
• A declaration that the acts of the Respondents jointly and severally in refusing to comply with the decree in H.C.C.S. No. 156 of 2007 amounted to contempt of court.
• A mandatory injunction issued against the Respondents ordering them to hand over to the 1st and 2nd Applicants the shops which they are entitled to as per the compensation agreements in Plot 14/18 Nakivubo Place.
• The handover must be completed within 1 week of this order, failing which an alternate sentence of 3 months committal into a civil prison is issued against the Respondents.
• A fine of UGX 10,000,000 to be paid by the Respondents jointly and severally, to be deposited onto the official designated account of Court for the Registrar High Court within 1 month of this order.
• Failure to pay the fine will attract an alternate committal to civil prison for 6 months running from the date of due default.
• Costs of the application awarded to the 1st and 2nd Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Art.28(12)
• Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Art.23(1)(a)
• Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 O.52 rr.1 & 3
• Evidence Act Cap 6 s.102

Cases cited (3)

• Chuck versus Cremer (I Coop Tempt Cott 342)
• Barbra Nambi v Raymond Lwanga (H.C.M.A. No. 213 of 2017)
• Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Ref. No. 8 of 2012)

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