Share
Irumba v Asiimwe & 5 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 40 (25 February 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] UGHC 40
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Gadenya, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2019
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Gadenya, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2019
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the Applicant was not in possession of the suit property at the time the restraining order was made, having already been evicted prior to the issuance of the order. The Applicant misled the court regarding his status, and the order was obtained on the basis of incorrect facts. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the Respondents were served with the court order or had knowledge of it. In the absence of proof of service and knowledge, and given the misleading conduct of the Applicant, the Respondents could not be held in contempt of court. The application for contempt was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for contempt of court is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Irumba Rashid
ApplicantAsiimwe Denis t/a Majimoto Auctioneers on behalf of Meera Investments Ltd & 5 Others
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Contempt of Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Respondents can be held in contempt of court for allegedly disobeying a court order restraining eviction of the Applicant.
- 02
Whether the Applicant misled the court regarding his possession of the suit property at the time the order was made.
- 03
Whether the Respondents were properly served with the court order and had knowledge of it.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Applicant argued that the Respondents wilfully disobeyed a court order restraining them from evicting him from the suit premises, and sought to have them held in contempt of court for their actions.
- Respondent
- The Respondents contended that the Applicant was not in possession of the suit property at the time the order was made, that the order was obtained by misleading the court, and that they were never served with the order or made aware of it.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Jacob Zedekiah Ochino and Another vs. George Aura Okombo and Others Civil Appeal 36 of 1989 (Kenya Court of Appeal)
A party cannot be held in contempt of court for disobeying an order obtained through misrepresentation or without proper service.
- 02
General principles of contempt of court
Contempt of court proceedings require proof that the alleged contemnor had knowledge of the order and wilfully disobeyed it.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the Applicant was not in possession of the suit property at the time the restraining order was made, having already been evicted prior to the issuance of the order. The Applicant misled the court regarding his status, and the order was obtained on the basis of incorrect facts. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the Respondents were served with the court order or had knowledge of it. In the absence of proof of service and knowledge, and given the misleading conduct of the Applicant, the Respondents could not be held in contempt of court. The application for contempt was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Obiter and limits
- Even if the order had been perfect, the Applicant could not establish a cause of action for contempt of court on an unserved court order.
- Respondents can only be held liable for contempt if Applicants establish that Respondents had knowledge of the court order and wilfully disobeyed it.
Court disposition
application dismissed
- The application for contempt of court is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
High Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT MASINDI MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 0053 OF 2019 IRUMBA RASHID APPLICANT ..................................................................... VERSUS ASIIMWE DENIS T/A MAJIMOTO AUCTIONEERS ON BEHALF OF MEERA INVESTMENTS LTD & 5 OTHERS ........................................... RESPONDENTS
RULING BY GADENYA PAUL WOLIMBWA - JUDGE
The Applicant filed this application to hold the Respondents in contempt of court for wilfully disobeying a court stopping them from evicting the Applicant from the suit premises. The Order was made by Justice Albert Ru gad ya Atooki on 16th January 2019, in the knowledge that the Applicant was still in possession of the suit property. The record, however, shows that the Applicant was evicted from the suit premises on 19th December 2018 and a return of execution of the court order was filed in court the same day.
The irrefutable conclusion is that by the time the Applicant appeared and argued his application for contempt of court before Justice Rugadya, on the 16th of January 2019, he misled the Judge that he was in the suit property, whereas not. I am sure that if Justice Rugadya, had been appraised of the true position and status of the Applicant in the suit property, he would have not made an order directing the Respondents not to evict the Applicant from the house. The Respondents cannot therefore, be cited for contempt of court for violating a court order that was obtained by the Applicant after misleading or not presenting the correct facts in court.
Even if the order of Justice Rugadya, was perfect, the Applicant cannot establish a cause of action for contempt of court on an unserved court order. The Applicant never filed affidavits of service to verify and confirm that he served the Respondents. In contempt of court proceedings, the Respondents can only be held liable only when the Applicants establish that the Respondents had knowledge of the court order and wilfully disobeyed it. In *Jacob Zedekiah Ochino and Another vs. George Aura Okombo and Others Civil Appeal 36 ofl989* the Kenya Court of Appeal held that:
"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 and endorsed
with notice informing him that if he disobeys the order he is liable to the process Consequently, the Application for contempt of court has no merit and it is accordingly
Gadenya Paul Wolimbwa JUDGE
25/2/2020
$\bar{\mathcal{L}}^{\circ}$
Ruling read on 25/2/2020 in the absence of the parties. Mr. Olinga Court Clerk present. Ruling to be served by court on parties.
Gadenya Paul Wolimbwa
JUDGE 25/2/2020
Gadenya Paul Wolimbwa<br>Judge
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.