Wakilii

Sali Moses v Mariam Nakagolo (Miscellaneous Application 13 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1439 · 2025 Application Granted — Contempt Established AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 138 of 2020 and Civil Suit No. 53 of 2010
Decision
Respondent found in contempt of court and ordered to pay exemplary damages, deposit a fine, halt all transactions relating to the estate property, and restore or account for property disposed of in violation of the court order.

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 found the respondent in contempt of court for violating an interim injunction order that restrained her from distributing or interfering with estate property pending final determination of the main suit. Despite being aware of the court order, the respondent proceeded to subdivide and sell portions of the deceased's estate land. The court awarded exemplary damages of UGX 150,000,000 with 8% interest and imposed a fine of UGX 5,000,000 to be deposited in court, emphasizing that disobedience of court orders strikes at the heart of the rule of law.

Outcome

Respondent found in contempt of court and ordered to pay exemplary damages, deposit a fine, halt all transactions relating to the estate property, and restore or account for property disposed of in violation of the court order.

Facts

The applicant, as administrator of the estate of late Ntalo George Byakuwola, filed Civil Suit No. 53 of 2010 against the respondent (administrator of the estate of late Babirye Edinansi) for wrongly distributing the estate of late Sosipateri Sajjabi. On 24 March 2021, Justice Eva K. Luswata issued an interim injunction restraining the respondent from making any further distribution or interfering with estate land at Kamuli Road Village and Bugembe Parish in Jinja District until disposal of the suit. Despite this order, the respondent subdivided and sold portions of the estate land to various persons including Kivumbi Fred and directors of Bugembe Vocational Institute. The applicant discovered these transactions in 2024 when he noticed demolition of structures on the estate land and was denied access by security guards. A search at the Lands Office revealed that certificates of title had been processed and the land sold in violation of the court order.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent is guilty of contempt of court orders.
  2. What remedies are available to the applicant?

Orders

  • The respondent is found to be in contempt of court.
  • The respondent shall pay exemplary damages of UGX 150,000,000 (One hundred and fifty million shillings only) to the applicant.
  • The exemplary damages shall carry interest of 8% from the date of this ruling until payment in full.
  • The respondent shall deposit a fine of UGX 5,000,000 (Five million shillings only) into this court.
  • The respondent is directed to purge the contempt by immediately halting all transactions relating to the estate property.
  • The respondent is directed to restore or account for any property disposed of in contravention of the court order.
  • The respondent is notified that further contempt shall attract punitive sanctions of imprisonment as provided under the law.
  • Costs of this application are awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements Required for Proof
To establish contempt of court, the applicant must prove: (1) the existence of a clear and unambiguous court order capable of being complied with; (2) the contemnor's knowledge of the order; (3) the contemnor's ability to comply with the order; and (4) the contemnor's failure to comply with or disobedience of the order.
Contempt of Court — Disobedience of Interim Injunction Orders
Where a party is aware of an interim injunction order restraining them from dealing with property and proceeds to sell or alienate that property in deliberate defiance of the court's directives, such conduct constitutes contempt of court and strikes at the heart of the rule of law and the administration of justice.
Court Orders — Duty to Comply Regardless of Perceived Validity
Court orders must be obeyed and complied with as ordered unless set aside or varied. A party who knows of an order, whether null or valid, irregular or not, cannot be permitted to disobey it. It would be most dangerous to hold that parties or their advocates could themselves judge whether an order was null or valid, whether regular or irregular.
Contempt of Court — Purpose and Enforcement
The whole purpose of litigation as a process of judicial administration is lost if orders issued by court through the set judicial process, in the normal functioning of courts, are not complied with in full by those targeted and called upon to give due compliance. Court orders cannot be issued in vain.
Contempt of Court — Remedies — Exemplary Damages and Fines
Where a party is found in contempt of court for disobeying an injunctive order, the court may award exemplary damages to the aggrieved party and impose a fine to be deposited in court. The quantum of such remedies should take into consideration the means of the contemnor and be sufficient to deter repetition of the breach.
Estate Administration — Interference with Estate Property Pending Litigation
Where an interim injunction restrains an estate administrator from distributing or interfering with estate property pending determination of a suit challenging the distribution, any subsequent subdivision, sale, or alienation of that property by the administrator constitutes a violation of the court order and may ground an application for contempt.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (13)

  • Jenison v Baker [1972] ALL ER 997
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Another v The Commissioner General - Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Richard Oddoi Adome v Uganda Electricity Generation Company Limited (UEGCL) (Miscellaneous Application No. 1088 of 2022)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Muriisa Nicholas v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 35 of 2012)
  • Wildlife Lodges v Country Council of Narok & Another [2005] EA 344
  • Kyaggwe Coffee Curing Estates Ltd v Emmanuel Lukwaju (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 327 of 2014)
  • Francis Drake Lubega v Attorney General & 2 Others (Consolidated Constitutional Applications Nos. 31 & 32 of 2011)
  • Megha Industries Ltd v Conform Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 21 of 2014)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • People v Krz 35 Mich App 643 (1971)
  • Mega Industries (U) Ltd v Comfoam Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Cause No. 21 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sali Moses v Mariam Nakagolo (Miscellaneous Application 13 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 1439 (5 April 2025)
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.