Wakilii

Okwonga George and Anor vs Okello James Harrison (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 132 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHC 29 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from Civil Appeal No. 031 of 2015
Decision
Application for contempt dismissed with no order as to costs

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 High Court dismissed an application for contempt of court, holding that no contempt was established. The applicants sought to hold the respondent in contempt for allegedly violating court orders by cultivating disputed customary land. The court found that while a valid order existed from the earlier appeal dismissal, the respondent had not violated any court order because the appeal was dismissed in his favour, confirming his rights to use the grazing area.

Outcome

Application for contempt dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The applicants and a deceased person had sued the respondent in the Chief Magistrate's Court over customary land measuring approximately 1.4 to 1.5 square kilometres in Gulu District. The trial court dismissed the suit with costs. The applicants appealed to the High Court, which upheld the trial court's decision. Following the successful appeal, the respondent carried out cultivation activities on the suit land. The applicants alleged that the respondent threatened violence, chased persons from the land, and stopped the applicants from using the land. They brought this contempt application claiming the High Court judgment allowed both parties joint use of the land and that the respondent violated this by exclusive cultivation.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent is in contempt of court.
  2. Whether the parties have any remedies.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Contempt — Existence of Valid Order — Extracted Decree Not Essential
An order of court for contempt purposes can be discerned from the judgment or ruling itself in the absence of a drawn copy; it is not always necessary that the order of court must first be extracted before contempt action can be commenced, as requiring extraction would create room for disregard of court orders with reckless abandon.
Civil Contempt — Requisites — Four Elements to be Proved
For one to be held in civil contempt, an applicant must prove that an order was issued by court; that the order was served or brought to the notice of the alleged contemnor; that there was non-compliance with the order; and that the non-compliance was willful and malafide. The first three elements must be proved on the balance of probability while the fourth ingredient must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Civil Contempt — Remedy of Last Resort — Exercise of Restraint
Even where an applicant satisfies all requirements of civil contempt, a court may still decline to make a finding of contempt where the alleged contemnor shows that he acted in good faith and was taking reasonable steps towards compliance with the order. The remedy of contempt is a remedy of last resort and should be used with great restraint.
Affidavits — Content Requirements — Argumentative Depositions
An affidavit must contain true facts and be confined to such facts as the deponent is able to prove of his or her own knowledge. Affidavits must not unnecessarily set forth matters of hearsay or be argumentative. Offending paragraphs of such affidavits can be struck out and costs occasioned may be ordered against the offending party.
Costs — Discretion — Family Disputes
In matters concerning parties who are close family members, a court may exercise discretion to refuse ordering the losing party to pay costs where doing so would help the process of reconciliation amongst them and promote the court's duty to reconcile parties under article 126(2)(d) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (12)

  • Sarkar on Evidence, 14th Ed. 1993, vol.2, page 2183
  • Dr Runumi Mwesigye Francis v The Returning Officer (Election Petition No. 02 of 2002)
  • Yoakim Mwene Habyene v Attorney General (SCCA No. 4 of 1996)
  • Rtd Col Dr Kizza Besigye v Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2006)
  • Odd Jobs Vs. Mubia [1970] EA 476
  • Victoria Tea Estates v James Bemba (SCCA No. 49 of 1996)
  • Bashir Ahamed Arain v Uganda Kwegata Construction Ltd (HCCS No. 692 of 1999)
  • Ssempebwa and others Vs. Attorney General, [2019] 1 EA 546
  • Betty Kizito v Dickson Nsubuga (Civil Application Nos. 25 and 26 of 2021)
  • Carey Vs. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17
  • Uganda Development Bank Vs. Muganga Construction Company & 2 others [1981] HCB 35
  • Monica Ntarumbana Ibingira & 3 others Vs. Muriel Baingana & 3 others [1997] 1 KALR 41

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.

Okwonga George and Anor vs Okello James Harrison (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 132 of 2021) [2022] UGHC 29 (21 October 2022)
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.