Wakilii

Wanyonyi Benard aka Mbojje v Maruti Boniface and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 827 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application arising from Civil Suit No. 77 of 2023 and Miscellaneous Application No. 427 of 2023, seeking multiple orders including striking out defence, contempt proceedings, and access to information
Decision
Application dismissed with costs to certain respondents

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court dismissed the applicant's omnibus application seeking to strike out the respondents' defence for alleged non-service, hold respondents in contempt, and obtain access to public procurement documents. The court held that service of the defence on the applicant's advocate's briefed counsel was valid service; that no contempt was established where the interim order did not prohibit continued cultivation; and that the High Court lacked original jurisdiction over access to information complaints under the Access to Information Act, which vests such jurisdiction in the Chief Magistrate's Court.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to certain respondents

Facts

The applicant sued twelve respondents in Civil Suit No. 77 of 2023 concerning disputed land. The applicant obtained an interim order on 20 December 2023 maintaining the status quo. The 1st to 10th respondents filed a joint written statement of defence on 20 December 2023, which they served on Advocate Yona Wesire on 22 December 2023, who had appeared on brief for the applicant's counsel. The applicant claimed he was not served within the required 15 days. The applicant also requested procurement documents from the 11th respondent (Chepsukunya Town Council) on 28 November 2023 regarding the purchase of the suit land. The 11th respondent, which did not exist when the land was purchased in 2009 by Ngenge Sub County under Kapchorwa district, forwarded the request to Kapchorwa district on 5 January 2024 but did not notify the applicant. The applicant alleged the 1st and 6th respondents violated the interim order by continuing to cultivate the land.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Respondent's affidavit opposing this application should be struck out for being riddled with falsehoods and forgery of the signature?
  2. Whether non-service of the Respondents' written statement of defence offended Order 8 Rule 19 and Order 49 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1, and should be struck out with costs?
  3. Whether the 1st and 6th Respondents are in contempt of the court order?
  4. Whether the 6th Respondent should pay to the Applicant UGX 250,000,000/= as compensation for actions of contempt of court?
  5. Whether the 11th and 12th Respondents violated the Applicant's right of access to information within the statutory period of 21 days?
  6. Whether the 12th Respondent is personally liable for denying the Applicant access to public documents?
  7. Whether the documents sought are necessary to the Applicant to prove illegalities involved in the land transaction between 10th and 11th Respondents in the main civil suit No. 77 of 2023?
  8. Whether the Applicant is entitled to compensation to a tune of UGX 100,000,000/= from the 11th and 12th Respondents in respect to their violation of the Applicant's right of access to information?
  9. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Respondents.
  • No costs awarded to the 11th and 12th Respondents due to their failure to notify the Applicant when his request for access to public information was forwarded to the body in possession of the record.
  • No costs awarded to the 6th Respondent who withdrew instructions and did not file submissions.

Rules and key headnotes

Service of Pleadings — Service on Advocate's Briefed Counsel
Where a party has retained an advocate to represent them in proceedings, service of court process on another advocate who has been briefed to appear for the retained advocate constitutes valid service on the party, provided the briefed advocate has authority to receive service on behalf of the retained advocate.
Affidavit Evidence — Cross-Examination and Allegations of Forgery
Where a party alleges that an affidavit contains forged signatures but fails to exercise their right under Order 19 Rule 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules to cross-examine the deponent, final submissions cannot be used to discredit the contents of the affidavit evidence in the absence of supporting evidence of forgery.
Contempt of Court — Elements and Burden of Proof
To succeed in an application for contempt of court, the applicant must prove: (a) the existence of a lawful order; (b) the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order; (c) the potential contemnor's ability to comply; and (d) the potential contemnor's failure to comply. A party cannot be held in contempt for doing an act which the court order did not prohibit.
Access to Information — Transfer of Requests and Notification Obligations
Under Section 12 of the Access to Information Act, where a public body receives a request for information not in its possession, the information officer must transfer the request to the body in possession of the record within 21 days and immediately notify the requester of the transfer, the reasons for it, and the period within which the request will be dealt with.
Access to Information — Jurisdiction of Courts
Under Section 36(a) of the Access to Information Act, the Chief Magistrate's Court has original jurisdiction to determine complaints against decisions of information officers to refuse requests for access to information. The High Court has appellate jurisdiction only and cannot exercise original jurisdiction in such matters despite its unlimited original jurisdiction under the Constitution.
Access to Information — Protection of Information Officers
Section 44 of the Access to Information Act protects public officers and information officers from civil or criminal liability for any act done or omitted to be done in good faith in the exercise or performance of any power or duty under the Act, including where the officer cannot provide information not in their possession.
Discovery — Proper Procedure for Obtaining Documents
The proper procedure for obtaining documents from another party to support one's case is through an application for discovery under Order 10 Rule 12(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules read with Section 22 of the Civil Procedure Act, not through an omnibus application seeking unrelated remedies including access to information.

Legislation cited (24)

Cases cited (7)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wanyonyi Benard aka Mbojje v Maruti Boniface and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 827 (1 September 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.