Wakilii

Oneti Vicent v Balengera Dan & Wasirwa Emmy (Miscellaneous Application 708 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 129 · 2023 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from consolidated suits HCCS No. 718 of 2020 and HCCS No. 706 of 2020
Decision
Application granted in part against the 2nd Respondent; application dismissed against the 1st Respondent. Fine imposed with imprisonment in default.

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

The High Court held that the 2nd Respondent was in contempt of court for grading suit land and pledging it as collateral despite unconditional temporary injunction orders prohibiting interference with the land. The 1st Respondent was not found in contempt due to lack of specific evidence. A fine of UGX 5,000,000 was imposed against the 2nd Respondent.

Outcome

Application granted in part against the 2nd Respondent; application dismissed against the 1st Respondent. Fine imposed with imprisonment in default.

Facts

The Applicant filed a suit (HCCS No. 718 of 2020) on 14 September 2020 against several parties including the Respondents. On 10 December 2020, a conditional temporary injunction was granted prohibiting interference with the suit land. This was later set aside and replaced with an unconditional temporary injunction on 6 April 2022 prohibiting the Respondents from dealing with the suit land until final determination. Despite these orders, the 2nd Respondent graded the suit land and applied to use it as collateral for a loan facility from AHA Finance Company on 4 May 2023. The Applicant produced photographic evidence of the graded land and containers on it. The 2nd Respondent claimed to have graded the land before the orders were issued but provided no supporting evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents are in contempt of Court?
  2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to any remedies?

Orders

  • The 2nd Respondent's act of grading the suit land contrary to the temporary injunction orders issued on 10 December 2020 and 6 April 2022 and pledging to use the suit land as collateral for a loan facility is in contempt of Court.
  • The 2nd Respondent is to pay a fine of UGX 5,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Five Million Only) for contempt of Court within ten (10) days of this order.
  • Failure to pay the fine, the 2nd Respondent is to be arrested and serve a term of imprisonment of two (2) months.
  • The costs of the application are to abide the result of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Requisites
For a party to be held in civil contempt, four requisites must be proved: (a) that an order was issued by Court; (b) that the order was served or brought to the notice of the alleged contemnor; (c) that there was non-compliance with the order; and (d) that the non-compliance was willful and mala fide.
Contempt of Court — Service of Orders — Notice as Alternative
With prohibitory orders, the requirement of personal service may be dispensed with where the person concerned has in fact notice of the order, either by being present when it was made or by being notified of its terms by telephone or otherwise.
Contempt of Court — Court Orders — Obligation to Obey
A party who knows of an order cannot be permitted to disobey it regardless of whether, in the view of that party, the order is null or void, regular or irregular. It is not for the party to choose whether or not to comply with such order. The order must be complied with in totality and in all circumstances.
Contempt of Court — Willful Disobedience — Good Faith Misapprehension
A deliberate commission or omission that is in breach of a court order will constitute willful disobedience unless it is casual, accidental or unintentional. However, when an act in breach of a court order is done consciously and voluntarily, it is immaterial that the breach was committed in reliance on a third party's advice.
Contempt of Court — Sanctions — Fine and Imprisonment
The purpose of a fine for contempt is to send a firm message that court orders are not issued in vain and ought to be respected and obeyed as long as they remain in force. The goal of civil contempt sanctions is to ensure compliance with the court order. Imprisonment for civil contempt may be ordered where the defendant has refused to do an affirmative act required by a mandatory order and is coercive in nature, not punitive.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (14)

  • Sempebwa and Others v Attorney General (2019) 7 EA 546
  • Onen David and 2 Others v Otto Ocan and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 737 of 2019)
  • Munib Masri Vs. Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL, Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company SAL [2011] EWHC 2579 (Comm)
  • Housing Finance Bank and Another v Musisi (Civil Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Betty Kizito v Dickson Nsubuga and 6 Others (Civil Applications Nos. 25 and 26 of 2021)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu Vs. Secretary General of the East African Community Ref No. 8 of 2012 (EACJ)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Another v Commissioner General, Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Davy International Ltd Vs. Tazzyman [1994] 1 WLR 1256
  • Nicholls v. Nicholls [1994] 1 WLR 374
  • Bell Vs. Moloy [2002] 1 WLR 2703
  • Wild Life Lodges Ltd Vs. County Council of Narok and another [2005] 2 EA 344
  • Serelaco Consultants Ltd Vs Euro [2007] UGCA 102 (12 December 2007)
  • H. G Gandesha and Another v G. J. Lutaaya (Civil Application No. 74 of 1989)
  • Wilkes Vs. Woods (1964) (98 E.R 489)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Oneti Vicent v Balengera Dan & Wasirwa Emmy (Miscellaneous Application 708 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 129 (6 October 2023)
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.