Wakilii

Tebandeke and Others v Mugerwa and Another (Miscellaneous Application 1529 of 2022)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 294 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from Civil Suit No. 231 of 2011
Decision
Respondents found in contempt and ordered to pay fine of UGX 50,000,000 within one month or face six months imprisonment in civil jail; 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

The court held that respondents were in contempt of court for re-entering school premises and attempting to evict applicants after lawful eviction. A party who knows of a court order, whether null or valid, irregular or regular, cannot be permitted to disobey it. Respondents should have addressed grievances through proper legal channels rather than taking the law into their own hands. Court imposed a fine of UGX 50,000,000 jointly on respondents.

Outcome

Respondents found in contempt and ordered to pay fine of UGX 50,000,000 within one month or face six months imprisonment in civil jail; costs awarded to applicants

Facts

Applicants are administrators of the estate of late David Katerega who executed a 15-year school management agreement with respondents. After the period lapsed in 2008, respondents remained in management. Applicants filed HCCS No. 231 of 2011 for recovery of the school. On 21 May 2021, judgment was entered in favour of applicants with court giving parties until 31 December 2021 to renegotiate terms, failing which respondents would be evicted without notice. Parties failed to renegotiate and respondents were evicted on 9 February 2022. Despite eviction, respondents issued a notice criticising the eviction process and alleging court error, then re-entered school premises and attempted to evict applicants. The first respondent claimed he returned to collect personal belongings and in his capacity as landlord of the land, though ownership of the land was pending determination in Civil Suit No. 2646 of 2016.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents were in contempt of court.
  2. What remedies are available for contempt of court?

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The respondents shall jointly pay a fine of UGX 50,000,000 within one month from the date of judgment, in default of which they shall be committed to civil jail for a period of six months.
  • The respondents shall pay the costs of this application to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements
For contempt of court to be established, it must be shown that there exists a lawful order, that the contemnor has knowledge of the said order, and that he or she has failed to comply with the same.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Disobedience of Court Orders
A party who knows of an order, regardless of whether in the view of that party the order is null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it by reason of what that party regards the order to be. It is not for that party to choose whether or not to comply with such an order.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Remedies and Penalties
Where disobedience of a court order is deliberate and wilful rather than casual, accidental or unintentional, the effective administration of justice requires imposition of a penalty. The party in whose favour an order has been made is entitled to have it enforced.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Scope of Application
Applications for contempt of court can arise from both interlocutory and final orders. All court orders, whether interlocutory or final, should be respected by all parties.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Proper Legal Channels
Parties who are not satisfied with decisions of court should address their grievances through proper legal channels and not take the law into their own hands. If a party believes an eviction order was not properly implemented, the proper recourse is to apply to court to set aside the process, not to physically re-enter and attempt counter-eviction.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Uganda Super League v Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 73 of 2013)
  • Nsangiranabo v Col Kaka Baggenda and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 671 of 2019)
  • Wildlife Lodges v Country Council of Narok and Another [2005] EA 344
  • Re Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No. 2) [1995] 1 All ER 135

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tebandeke_and_Others_v_Mugerwa_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_1529_of_2022)_[2022]_UGHCLD_294_(18_August_2022)
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.