Wakilii

Seki Toleko James Katlmba v Damalic Achan (Misc. Application No. 846 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 86 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for demolition order and contempt of court arising from Civil Suit No. 884 of 2021
Decision
Application for demolition order and contempt of court dismissed

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 the application for a demolition order and contempt of court. The applicant sought to hold the respondent in contempt for allegedly violating a temporary injunction restraining construction on land comprised in Kyadondo Block 225 Plot 841. The court found that the original temporary injunction order of 25 October 2021 had been varied by Miscellaneous Application No. 3044 of 2023 and subsequently set aside by Miscellaneous Application No. 3387 of 2023, rendering it of no legal effect. The applicant failed to prove the essential elements of contempt: existence of a clear and unambiguous order, knowledge of the order, and lack of just cause for violation.

Outcome

Application for demolition order and contempt of court dismissed

Facts

The applicant brought an application seeking a demolition order against the respondent for allegedly erecting illegal structures on land comprised in Kyadondo Block 225 Plot 841 at Buto, Ssaabaddu Subcounty, Wakiso District, in violation of a court injunction. The applicant also sought to have the respondent referred for criminal prosecution for contempt of court. The matter arose from Civil Suit No. 884 of 2021. The applicant alleged that the court had issued a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from constructing on the land, and that the respondent had defied this order by resuming construction and completing permanent structures. The respondent denied acting in contempt and contended that the temporary injunction granted in Miscellaneous Application No. 1763 of 2021 had been varied by Miscellaneous Application No. 3044 of 2023. The court found that the original injunction order of 25 October 2021 had been reviewed and set aside in Miscellaneous Application No. 3387 of 2023, rendering it of no legal effect.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent is in contempt of court for allegedly violating a temporary injunction order.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements to be Proved
For a party to be found in contempt of court, the complainant must prove that the party accused knew the order existed, that the party had the ability to comply with the order but violated it knowingly, and that the accused party lacks just cause or excuse for the violation.
Contempt of Court — Service of Order
No order requiring a person to do or abstain from doing any act may be enforced by contempt unless a copy of the order has been served personally on that person.
Contempt of Court — Exercise of Power to Punish
The power of punishing for contempt should be used sparingly and only in serious cases or where the court is compelled to punish by reason of persistent and obstinate defiance and interference of the contemnor or if the conduct will prejudice the trial.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (3)

  • 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 (Misc. Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Izoura v R [1953] 1 All ER 827

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_(Misc._Application_No._846_of_2025)_[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.