Wakilii

RAMNICKLAL PAPOT v ATTORNEY GENERAL & OTHERS (Miscellaneous Application No. 1053 of 2015)

High Court · [2015] UGHCLD 46 · 2015 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 non-compliance with judgment and decree in High Court Civil Suit No. 0701 of 1996
Decision
Respondents found in contempt and given 30 days to comply with original judgment or face committal to civil prison; compulsory acquisition declared null and void

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 court found all respondents in contempt for failing to comply with a 2013 judgment ordering vacant possession and payment of mesne profits. The respondents were served multiple times but neither complied nor provided reasons for non-compliance. The court declared the Minister's subsequent compulsory acquisition of the property unlawful as it violated Article 26(2) of the Constitution requiring prompt compensation prior to taking possession. The contemnors were given 30 days to purge contempt by complying with the orders or face committal to civil prison.

Outcome

Respondents found in contempt and given 30 days to comply with original judgment or face committal to civil prison; compulsory acquisition declared null and void

Facts

The applicant obtained judgment in 2013 against the Government ordering vacant possession of Plot 12 Army Avenue, Kampala and payment of mesne profits of US$ 8,131,890 for illegal occupation by the External Security Organisation. The judgment and decree were served on the Attorney General in November 2013 with requests for compliance. Despite multiple letters in 2014 and a writ of mandamus granted in April 2015, the respondents neither complied nor responded. Instead, in September 2015, the Minister for Lands issued a statutory instrument purporting to compulsorily acquire the property without prior compensation. The applicant then filed this contempt application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents have acted and or conducted themselves in contempt of court orders.
  2. Whether the compulsory acquisition of the suit property by Government through the 3rd Respondent in the person of the 4th Respondent is lawful and or effective.
  3. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • The 1st Respondent represented in the person of the 2nd Respondent Hon. Fred Ruhindi, the 5th Respondent in the person of the 6th Respondent Mr. Keith Muhakanizi, and the 7th Respondent acted and/or conducted themselves in a manner in contempt of court.
  • The 1st Respondent represented in the person of the 2nd Respondent Hon. Fred Ruhindi, and the 5th Respondent in the person of the 6th Respondent Mr. Keith Muhakanizi, are given a period of 30 days from the date of this ruling to purge themselves by fully paying to the Applicant the sums due and owing under the Certificate of Order.
  • The 7th Respondent purges himself/herself of the contempt and gives vacant possession of the suit premises in the terms of the court order.
  • Upon failure by all the contemnors to purge themselves within the time given, the Applicant is directed to promptly move court for orders that the said contemnors each in person be summoned to show cause why he should not be arrested and committed to civil prison.
  • The compulsory acquisition of the suit premises by the Government through the 3rd Respondent in the person of the 4th Respondent Hon. Daudi Migereko, is illegal, null and void.
  • The Applicant is awarded costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Disobedience of Court Orders
A party who knows of an order of court, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it. It is not for that party to choose whether or not to comply with such an order. The order has to be complied with in totality, subject to that party's right to challenge the order by way of revision, review or appeal.
Contempt of Court — Duty to Explain Non-Compliance
Where a party finds compliance with a court order not possible for genuine reasons, it is the responsibility and duty of that party to appropriately move the court issuing the order and bring to the attention of court the reasons for non-compliance. To disobey an order of court or offer no explanation for non-compliance is to commit contempt of court.
Affidavit Evidence — Unrebutted Facts
Where facts are sworn to in an affidavit and these are not denied or rebutted by the opposite party, the presumption is that such facts are accepted.
Compulsory Acquisition — Prior Compensation Requirement
Under Article 26(2) of the Constitution, the Government cannot compulsorily acquire property without first compensating the owner before taking possession whether physical or legal. Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act must be read subject to this constitutional requirement of prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation prior to taking possession.
Compulsory Acquisition — Invalidity of Acquisition Without Prior Compensation
A purported compulsory acquisition of property by Government that does not comply with the constitutional requirement of prompt compensation prior to taking possession is unlawful, invalid and ineffective.
Contempt of Court — Remedies — Committal to Civil Prison
Civil contempt is punishable by way of committal or sequestration. Where contemnors fail to purge themselves of contempt within the time given by the court, the court may order that they be summoned to show cause why they should not be arrested and committed to civil prison.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (19)

  • Muriisa v Nicholas & Attorney General (HCMC No. 035 of 2012)
  • Mehga Industries (U) Ltd v Conform (U) Ltd (HCMC No. 21 of 2014)
  • Behangana Domaro v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 53 of 2010)
  • Amrit Goyal v Harichand Goyal & 3 Others (CA Civil Application No. 109 of 2004)
  • Commercial Bank of Africa v Nderangu [1990-1991] EA 69
  • Republic v National Land Commission & Treasures Ltd Ex parte Krystalline Salt Ltd [2015] KLR 23
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 1 of 2010)
  • Uganda National Roads Authority v Irumba Asumani & Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 02 of 2014)
  • Advocates for National Resources Governance and Development & 2 Others v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2013)
  • Jennison v Baker [1972] 1 All ER 997
  • The Proctor & Gamble Co. v Kyole James Mutisho & 2 Others (HCMA No. 135 of 2012)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCMA No. 42 of 2010)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] All ER 567
  • Church vs. Cremer (1 Coop Temp Cott 342)
  • Massa v Achen [1978] HCB 297
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another v Edward Musisi (CAMA No. 158 of 2010)
  • Chuck vs. Cremer (1 Corp Jemp 342)
  • Wildlife Lodges Limited v County Council Of Narok And Another [2005] 2 EA 344
  • Oil Seeds v Chris Kassami (HC MA No. 136 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

RAMNICKLAL PAPOT VS ATTORNEY GENERAL & OTHERS (Miscellaneous Application No. 1053 of 2015) [2015] UGHCLD 46 (2 December 2015)
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.