Wakilii

Sebiragala and Another v Sebiragala and Another (Miscellaneous Application 2816 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 119 · 2025 Application Granted — Contempt Established AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for committal for contempt of court arising from alleged breach of interim injunction in underlying land dispute
Decision
Both respondents found in contempt and ordered to pay fines or face imprisonment; costs awarded to applicants

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

Held that both respondents were in willful and mala fide contempt of an interim injunction restraining interference with land comprised in Busiro Block 359 Plot 2684. The first respondent, having been convicted of criminal trespass on the same property, sold a portion to the second respondent after the injunction was granted. The second respondent failed to conduct proper due diligence, entering a memorandum of understanding for property not registered in the seller's name. Both respondents ordered to pay fines of UGX 5,000,000 each or face six months' imprisonment.

Outcome

Both respondents found in contempt and ordered to pay fines or face imprisonment; costs awarded to applicants

Facts

The applicants filed Civil Suit No. 507 of 2017 seeking a permanent injunction against the first respondent. On 20 December 2017, the court granted an interim order restraining the first respondent, his agents or servants from subdividing, developing, selling or interfering with land comprised in Busiro Block 359 Plot 2684 at Nakatema, Wakiso District. The first applicant is the registered proprietor of the suit land, having been registered on 29 July 2010. The first respondent had been convicted of criminal trespass on the suit property on 23 January 2017. On 4 May 2017, after his conviction but before the interim order, the first respondent executed a memorandum of understanding purporting to sell part of the suit property to the second respondent. Despite the interim order, both respondents continued construction and development activities on the suit land. The second respondent claimed he was unaware of the court order and had conducted due diligence, but the property was not registered in the first respondent's name.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents' actions amount to contempt of Court.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The 1st and 2nd Respondents are ordered to pay Shs. 5,000,000/= (five million shillings) each within 15 days from the date of this ruling to purge themselves of the contempt.
  • In default of payment of the penalty for contempt of Court, the 1st and 2nd Respondents (Sebiragala Edward Junior and Mawanda Robert) shall be arrested and imprisoned for 6 (six) months.
  • The Respondents shall jointly and severally pay the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Contempt — Nature and Distinction from Criminal Contempt
Civil contempt occurs outside the court's realm and usually takes the form of disregarding court orders and judgments, whereas criminal contempt happens in the presence of court when a contemnor interferes with the court's ability to function properly through conduct such as yelling at a judge or using insolent language.
Civil Contempt — Ingredients to be Proved
To succeed in civil contempt proceedings, an applicant must prove four ingredients: the existence of the order; service or notice thereof; non-compliance; and willfulness and mala fides beyond reasonable doubt. Once the applicant proves the first three requisites, the respondent bears the evidential burden in relation to willfulness and mala fides.
Civil Contempt — Failure to Conduct Due Diligence as Evidence of Willfulness
Where a purchaser enters into an agreement to purchase land that is not registered in the seller's name, fails to inquire from the registered proprietor or administrators of the estate, and enters an agreement with no witness names indicated, such conduct demonstrates willful and mala fide non-compliance with a court order restraining dealings with the property.
Civil Contempt — Disposal of Property by Non-Registered Proprietor After Criminal Conviction
Where a person has been convicted of criminal trespass on property and subsequently purports to sell a portion of that property while it remains registered in another person's name, such conduct demonstrates willful defiance of court findings and lends credence to claims that the transaction was backdated to render court orders nugatory.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • Betty Kizito v Dickson Nsubuga and 6 Others (Civil Application Nos. 25 & 26 of 2021)
  • Florence Dawaru v Angumale Albino and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2016)
  • Sempebwa and Others v Attorney General [2019] 1 EA 546
  • Lubuka v Nsobya (Miscellaneous Application No. 358 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sebiragala_and_Another_v_Sebiragala_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_2816_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_119_(1_July_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.