THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MBARARA
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 074 OF 2022
(ARISING FROM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 187 OF 2021)
(ALL ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO.036 OF 2021)
ABC :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT
VERSUS
XYZ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENTS
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
BREIF BACKGROUND
The applicant is in possession of part of the suit land and does hold equitable
rights as a tenant by occupancy having stayed on the suit land with the consent of
the 1st Respondent since 1999. That the applicant sued the Respondents vide civil
suit No. 36 of 2021 for a declaration that the applicant is a tenant in common with
the 1st Respondent on the suit land and that the sale transaction between the 1 st
Respondent and the 2nd Respondent is a nullity. The applicant further filed an
application vide No. 187 of 2021 for grant of a temporary injunction which
application was granted on the 21st day of February, the year 2022 in the presence
of the 2nd Respondent and his counsel.
In total disregard of the court order to maintain the status quo till the disposal of
the main suit, the Respondents have tampered with the suit property, took
possession, evicted the applicant and drove away her 15 heads of cattle which were
grazing on the suit land, fenced off the applicant’s banana plantation and stopped
her from accessing her banana plantation which is being used by the 2 nd
Respondent.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the Respondent’s actions, by themselves or through their
employees, agents or persons acting on their behalf, are in
contempt of the temporary injunction order issued by this
honourable Court?
2. What remedies are available to the parties?
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES:
ISSUE 1:
Whether the Respondents’ actions, by themselves or through their
employees, agents or persons acting on their behalf, are in contempt
of the temporary injunction orders issued by this honorable Court?
Your Worship this application is brought under S.98 of the Civil Procedure Act
Cap 71, S. 14(1) and 33 of the Judicature Act, Order 41 rules ( 2)(3) of the Civil
Procedure Rules S.I 71-1.
The grounds of this application are that;
(i).That the applicant obtained an order of injunction against the Respondents
restraining them from evicting her, interfering with quiet enjoyment or carrying
out any activity on the suit land.
(ii).That the order of a temporary injunction was granted on the 21 st of Febuary
2022 to maintain the status quo.
(iii).That on the 16th March 2022,in fragrant, wanton disregard of the court order,
the Respondents and their workers, servants and people acting on their behalf
armed with pangas, sticks and other weapons evicted the applicant from the suit
land and drove her cattle away from the suit land.
(iv).That the Respondents in total disregard of the court order went a head and
forcefully fenced off the land and stopped the applicant’s cows from accessing the
suit land.
(v).That the Respondents have rendered the court order useless as they are
changing the status quo.
(vi).That the Respondents forcefully took over the applicant’s banana plantation,
fenced it off and have denied the applicant access to food from her banana
plantation.
Submission on the Law and Evidence.
The applicant state in paragraph 2, 3 of her affidavit that she obtained a court
order to restrain the Respondents from evicting her from the suit land or
changing the status quo of the suit land.
She states in paragraph 4 to 8 of her affidavit in support, that the Respondents in
total disregard of the order for a temporary injunction of this honourable Court
have personally and through their employees, agents, and or persons acting on
their behalf and or instructions, evicted the applicant from the suit land, fenced it
off and chased her cattle, stopped her from using her banana plantation and
getting food from there.
The above mentioned acts all have the effect of interfering with the Applicant’s
and his family members’ quiet enjoyment of the suit property and thus are indeed
in contravention of the fore mentioned temporary injunction order.
The law relating to contempt of court was extensively considered in the case of
Muriisa Nicholas vs. Attorney General and 3 others Misc. Cause No
035 of 2012 as follows;
“There exists an acute depth as to the statutory and judicial authorities on the
phrase “contempt of court” in Uganda. In such circumstances court is enjoined to
assign the phrase its meaning in ordinary parlance. Black’s law Dictionary
(7th Ed) at p.313, defines contempt as:-
“A disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative
or judicial body, or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly
behavior or insolent language, in its presence or so near thereto as to
disturb the proceedings or to impair respect due to such a body.”
The above definition was applied in the case of The Procter & Gamble
Company vs. Kyole James Mutisho & 2 Others HCT-00-CC-MA-135 of
2012 by Kiryabwire J.
Where he cited Romer J, in the case of Hadkinson vs. Hadkinson (1952)
All ER 567 stated that; “Disregard of an order of court is a matter of
sufficient concern, whatever the order may be …..”
In the case of Church vs. Church (1 Coop Temp Cott 342) Romer J. once
again stated that;
“A party who knows of an order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular,
cannot be permitted to disobey it...It would be most dangerous to hold that
suitors or their solicitors, could themselves judge whether the order was null or
void – whether regular or irregular.That they should not come to the court and
take (it) upon themselves to determine such question. That a course of a party
knowing of an order, which was null or irregular and who might be affected by
it was plain. He should apply to the court that it might be discharged. As long as
it existed it must not be disobeyed...”
The applicant was granted a temporary injunction vide Misc. Application No.187
of 2022 which restrained (the Respondents herein) their servants, agents,
employees and or any persons claiming through or under them from interfering
with the quiet enjoyment and utilization of the suit land which land is in
possession by the applicant.
Your Worship, the Respondents refused to honour the said orders vehemently.
We therefore invite you to find that the actions of the Respondents, by themselves
and or through their employees, agents and or persons acting on their behalf are
indeed in contempt of the temporary injunction order issued on the 21 st day of
February 2022.
ISSUE 2: What remedies are available to the parties?
Your Worship, S.98 of the Civil Procedure Act cap 71 and S. 14(1) and 33 of the
judicature Act, cloth this honourable court with inherent powers to issue such
orders as to ensure that the ends of justice are met.
In the case of Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & another vs. The Commissioner
General URA Misc Application No 0042 of 2010 Mulyagonja J, stated
that;
“….. S.98 CPA provides that nothing in that Act shall be deemed to limit or
otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be
necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
Contempt of court is one of one such abuse of the court process.”
The remedies for contempt of court orders have been considered in several
authorities including;
Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol. 9(1) at paragraph 492 states that:-
“.... Civil contempt is punishable by way of committal or by way of
sequestration. The effect of the writ of sequestration is to place, for a temporary
period, the property of the contemnor into the hands of sequestrators, who
manage the property and receive rents and profits. Civil contempt may also be
punishable by a fine or an injunction may be granted against the
contemnor...”
Accordingly we invite this honourable Court to order that the Contemnor, in this
case the Respondents, be committed to Civil Prison until they comply with the
order violated or purges themselves of the said contempt.
We also pray that the each of the Respondent pays a fine of Uganda Shillings
Seven Million (UGX 7, 000,000/=) to the applicant. Reference is made to the case
of Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & another vs. The Commissioner General
URA Misc Application No 0042 of 2010,where URA was ordered to pay a
fine of UGX 100,000,000/= (Uganda Shillings One hundred million) as a fine for
contempt of court.
Finally we pray that the costs of this application be awarded against the
Respondents. Section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act cap 71 provided that
costs in a court matter shall follow the event.
In conclusion we therefore invite this honourable court to allow this application
with the prayers sought.
We so pray.
DATED at Mbarara this…………………..day of ………………………………….2022
……………………………………………………………….
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT
DRAWN AND FILLED BY
…………………………..
