Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Irumba v Asiimwe & 5 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 53 of 2019) [2020] UGHC 40 (25 February 2020)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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

Applicant

Asiimwe Denis t/a Majimoto Auctioneers on behalf of Meera Investments Ltd & 5 Others

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Contempt of Court

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2020] UGHC 40

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

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Jacob Zedekiah Ochino and Another vs. George Aura Okombo and Others Civil Appeal 36 of 1989 (Kenya Court of Appeal)

Case cited

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.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.