Wakilii

Seki Toleko James Katlmba v Damalic Achan [2026] UGHCLD 86

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application in a pending land suit seeking a demolition order, committal/criminal prosecution for contempt of court and vacant possession
Decision
Application for demolition order and contempt sanctions dismissed for lack of merit; main suit remains pending

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 dismissed an application for a demolition order and contempt sanctions. Contempt requires proof that a clear and unambiguous order existed, that the alleged contemnor knew of it and could comply but knowingly violated it, and that there was no just cause. Here the temporary injunction relied on had been varied and, on review, the varying order of 25 October 2021 was set aside, so the order allegedly breached had no legal effect. The applicant also failed to show any continuing construction on the suit land. Since no contempt was established, no demolition, vacant possession or criminal referral could be ordered. Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application for demolition order and contempt sanctions dismissed for lack of merit; main suit remains pending

Facts

The applicant, the plaintiff in a pending land suit concerning land comprised in Kyadondo Block 225 Plot 841 at Buto, Ssaabaddu Sub-county, Wakiso District, alleged that the respondent had defied a temporary injunction restraining her from developing or dealing with the suit land. He deposed that she resumed construction and completed permanent structures, remained in unlawful occupation, and supported this with photographs previously filed with an affidavit in support of an amended plaint. He sought a demolition order, vacant possession, police assistance in enforcement and referral of the respondent for criminal prosecution for contempt. The respondent admitted that a temporary injunction had issued to maintain the status quo but stated that it had been varied, and that the status quo was her possession of the suit land. She denied any defiance. The court's own examination of the record showed that the injunction had been consented to, that a variation was granted, and that on review in a subsequent application the order varying the injunction, dated 25 October 2021, had been reviewed and set aside. No evidence was placed before the court of continuing construction.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent was in contempt of court for allegedly disobeying a temporary injunction restraining development of the suit land.
  2. Whether a demolition order, vacant possession and referral for criminal prosecution for contempt should issue against the respondent.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements to be proved by the complainant
To establish contempt of court, the complainant must prove the existence of a clear and unambiguous court order, that the alleged contemnor knew the order existed, that he or she had the ability to comply but knowingly violated it, and that there was no just cause or excuse for the violation.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Order varied or set aside cannot found contempt
An order that has been varied or set aside has no legal effect and cannot form the basis of a finding of contempt of court against the party alleged to have disobeyed it.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Service of the order on the alleged contemnor
No order requiring a person to do or abstain from doing an act may be enforced by contempt proceedings unless a copy of the order has been served personally on that person, although upload of the order on the electronic court case management system may support a presumption of service.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Sparing exercise of the power to punish
The power to punish for contempt is to be exercised sparingly and only in serious cases of persistent and obstinate defiance or interference, or where the conduct will prejudice the trial; a fine is appropriate only where the disobedience is wilful and not casual, accidental or unintentional.
Land & Property — Enforcement of Injunctions — Demolition order requires proof of continuing breach
A demolition order in aid of an injunction over land will not issue where the applicant fails to demonstrate that the respondent is continuing with construction or development on the suit land in breach of a subsisting order.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex parte Blackburn (No 2) [1968] 2 All ER 319 (CA)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Another v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Izoura v. R [1953] 1 All E.R. 827, [1953] A.C. 327; [1953] 2 W.L.R. 700
  • Damalie Achan v Kalumba James Sekitoleko (Miscellaneous Application No. 3387 of 2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Seki Toleko James Katlmba v Damalic Achan [2026] UGHCLD 86 (14 April 2026)
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.