Wakilii

Sebuwufu Godfrey v Kasozi Jimmy and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1119 · 2025 Application Granted — Contempt Established AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court order arising from temporary injunction granted in land trespass suit
Decision
Application granted. First respondent found in contempt and fined UGX 50,000,000 with alternative demolition 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

Held that the respondents were in contempt of a temporary injunction order issued on 2 July 2024. The court found that the respondents, with knowledge of the order restraining interference with suit land, willfully disobeyed it by constructing permanent structures on the graded area. A fine of UGX 50,000,000 was imposed with alternative demolition of the illegal structures at the respondents' cost.

Outcome

Application granted. First respondent found in contempt and fined UGX 50,000,000 with alternative demolition order

Facts

The applicant is the registered proprietor of land comprised in Mawokota Block 119 Plot 97 at Nakirebe. He filed Civil Suit No. 50 of 2024 against the respondents for trespass. On 2 July 2024, court granted a temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 94 of 2024 authorizing the applicant to continue utilizing the part he was using and restraining interference with the old lady's house and the graded area. Subsequently, the respondents' agents and servants allegedly entered the suit property and started constructing on the graded area in violation of the court order. The applicant brought this contempt application seeking a warrant of arrest, a declaration of contempt, damages, and costs. During a locus in quo visit on 1 October 2025, the court observed that the graded area had been hollowed out with soil removed, four permanent roofed structures had been constructed, building materials were present, and boundary marks had been planted on the suit land.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents acted in contempt of the court order issued on 2 July 2024 in Miscellaneous Application No. 94 of 2024.
  2. What remedies are available to the applicant.

Orders

  • A declaration that the 1st respondent is in contempt of the court order issued on 2 July 2024.
  • The 1st respondent is ordered to pay UGX 50,000,000 as a fine for contemptuous behavior within three months from delivery of this ruling.
  • Failure to comply with the fine order allows the applicant to demolish all illegal permanent structures constructed during the subsistence of the temporary injunction at the respondents' cost.
  • Any demolition must be executed under the watch of local authorities and local police who must cooperate in enforcing the court order.
  • Any person who disobeys this court order is to be arrested and committed to Civil Prison.
  • Costs of the application to be borne by the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements — Existence of lawful order, knowledge, and willful disobedience
For a court to determine whether there was contempt, there must be existence of a lawful order, the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order, and the potential contemnor's failure to comply with the order through willful disobedience.
Documentary Evidence — Photographs — Admissibility requirements under Electronic Transactions Act
The mere attachment of photographs to an affidavit without complying with the requirements of the Electronic Transactions Act does not satisfy evidential standards. There must be evidence as to who took the photographs and the circumstances under which they were taken.
Locus in Quo — Court's discretion to visit suit property where photographic evidence is insufficient
Where photographic evidence is insufficient to establish facts material to an application, the court may exercise its discretion to visit the locus in quo in the interest of justice to determine the genuineness of the applicant's allegations.
Contempt of Court — Remedies — Fine with alternative demolition order
Where contempt of a temporary injunction order is established, the court may impose a monetary fine for the contemptuous behavior and, in the alternative, grant an order permitting demolition of structures erected in violation of the injunction at the contemnor's cost.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (East African Court of Justice Reference No. 8 of 2012)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Annet Nalweyiso v Mathias Bukenya and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 945 of 2015)
  • Uganda v David Kamugisha and Another (Criminal Session No. 29 of 1989)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sebuwufu Godfrey v Kasozi Jimmy and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 1119 (6 October 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.