Wakilii

Streams Of Life Church Ltd v Jane Nakityo and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1888 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 90 · 2026 Application Partly Allowed — Contempt Found AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from alleged violation of stay of execution order in Miscellaneous Application No. 2948 of 2023, itself arising from Civil Suit No. 2850 of 2016
Decision
1st and 2nd Respondents found in contempt and ordered to pay fine of UGX 100,000,000 within 60 days; 3rd and 4th Respondents directed to implement stay of execution 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 court held that the 1st and 2nd Respondents were in contempt of court for procuring cancellation of the Applicant's land title in violation of a stay of execution order, despite their lawyers having been served with the order via email. The 3rd and 4th Respondents (Commissioner Land Registration) were not found in contempt as they were not parties to the stay application and were not timely notified. The court imposed a fine of UGX 100,000,000 jointly and severally on the 1st and 2nd Respondents and ordered the Commissioner to comply with the stay order.

Outcome

1st and 2nd Respondents found in contempt and ordered to pay fine of UGX 100,000,000 within 60 days; 3rd and 4th Respondents directed to implement stay of execution order

Facts

The Applicant held title to land comprised in Busiro Block 498 Plots 34 and 35. Following judgment in Civil Suit No. 2850 of 2016 against the Applicant, the court granted a stay of execution on 28 November 2023 pending appeal. The stay order was delivered to the parties' lawyers via email. Despite this, on 9 September 2024, the 1st and 2nd Respondents, through different advocates (ABBA Advocates), procured cancellation of the Applicant's title and had the land transferred into their names as joint tenants. They then applied for a special certificate of title, falsely declaring the original duplicate certificate lost when it remained in the Applicant's possession. The Commissioner Land Registration implemented the cancellation, unaware of the stay order. Upon complaint by the Applicant in February 2025, the Commissioner lodged a caveat but declined to reverse the cancellation, citing the pending appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents acted in contempt of the terms of the Order of stay of execution made in Miscellaneous Application No. 2948 of 2023.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The 1st and 2nd Respondents have been found in contempt of an order of Court vide Miscellaneous Application No. HCT-00-LD-MA-2948-2023.
  • The 3rd and 4th Respondent are hereby directed to comply and strictly implement the orders in Miscellaneous Application No. HCT-00-LD-MA-2948-2023.
  • The 1st and 2nd Respondents are jointly and severally ordered to deposit in court a fine of UGX 100,000,000 (one hundred million) within 60 days.
  • The 1st and 2nd Respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements — Knowledge of Order
To establish contempt of court, the complainant must prove that the party accused knew the order existed, had the ability to comply with the order but violated it knowingly, and lacked just cause or excuse for the violation.
Contempt of Court — Service of Order — Service on Legal Representative
Where a party is represented by an advocate and a court order is delivered to that advocate's email address, the party cannot claim non-service or lack of knowledge of the order. It is the duty of the lawyer to inform the client of court orders.
Contempt of Court — Deliberate Violation — Use of Different Advocates
Where a party uses different law firms not involved in the stay application to implement a stayed judgment and to obtain a special certificate of title, this constitutes a well thought out scheme and deliberate move to circumvent and violate the court order.
Land Registration — Commissioner's Powers — Cancellation for Error vs Fraud
The Commissioner for Land Registration has no jurisdiction to cancel a certificate of title on the ground of fraud. The error envisaged under section 88(2)(a) of the Land Act is necessarily the error of the Registrar and not of a transferee in title obtained by fraud.
Land Registration — Commissioner's Caveat — Powers under Section 154
The Commissioner Land Registration may exercise powers under section 154 of the Registration of Titles Act to lodge a caveat for the prevention of fraud or improper dealing with land, and such caveat is a recognised administrative tool used to protect the public interest.
Contempt of Court — Sanctions — Factors to Consider
Before imposing sanctions for contempt, the court should consider whether the applicant has been prejudiced by the contempt and whether the prejudice is capable of remedy; the extent to which the contemnor acted under pressure; whether the breach was deliberate or unintentional; the degree of culpability; whether the contemnor appreciated the seriousness of the breach; whether the contemnor has cooperated or apologised; and whether the contemnor has admitted the contempt.
Contempt of Court — Punishment — Fines
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. A fine may be imposed when the contempt consists of wilful disobedience to a court order in the sense that the disobedience is not casual, accidental or unintentional.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (6)

  • R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex parte Blackburn (No 2) [1968] 2 All ER 319 (CA)
  • Aiken Connections Limited v Safaricom Limited and 2 Others (Nairobi Miscellaneous Application No. 450 of 2012)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Another v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Namusoke and 2 Others v Owalhi's Home Investment Trust (EA) Limited and Another [2023] UGSC
  • Oncopharm (U) Limited v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 92 of 2025)
  • 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.

Streams_Of_Life_Church_Ltd_v_Jane_Nakityo_and_3_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1888_of_2025)_[2026]_UGHCLD_90_(8_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.