Download

Uganda Judgment

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Kobutugu v Ihora Museveni (Miscellaneous Application No. 117 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 223 (22 October 2021)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that there was no affidavit of service on record to prove that the respondent had been served with the application. Order 5 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires mandatory service of court process within 21 days, and failure to comply results in dismissal of the suit under Order 5 Rule 3(c). Entertaining the application without evidence of service would be prejudicial to the respondent and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the application was dismissed for non-service.

Court disposition

application dismissed for non-service

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for non-service.
  • No order is made as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Kobutugu Edisa

Applicant

George Ihora Museveni

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Punitive Damages Sought: UGX 50,000,000
  • Fine Sought: UGX 30,000,000

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 respondent failed to comply with the consent order entered on 28th January 2020, which required the respondent to transfer 100 acres of land and fulfill other obligations. The applicant contended that this deliberate disregard amounts to contempt of court and sought committal of the respondent to civil prison, punitive damages, and other sanctions.
Respondent
The respondent did not file a response or appear, and there was no affidavit of service on record to prove that the respondent was served with the application.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 5 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Rules

    Court process must be served within 21 days as mandated by Order 5 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

  2. 02

    Order 5 Rule 3(c), Civil Procedure Rules

    Failure to serve summons within the prescribed period results in dismissal of the suit without notice.

  3. 03

    Rashida Abdul Karim Hanali & Another v Suleiman Adrisi Misc. Civil Application No. 009 of 2017

    The use of 'shall' in procedural rules makes compliance mandatory.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that there was no affidavit of service on record to prove that the respondent had been served with the application. Order 5 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires mandatory service of court process within 21 days, and failure to comply results in dismissal of the suit under Order 5 Rule 3(c). Entertaining the application without evidence of service would be prejudicial to the respondent and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the application was dismissed for non-service.

Obiter and limits

  • Entertaining this application with no evidence of service will be prejudicial to the Respondent and this court will not condemn the Respondent unheard.

Court disposition

application dismissed for non-service

  • The application is dismissed for non-service.
  • No order is made as to costs.

Source and reliance status

HC: Civil Division (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

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Judgment

[2021] UGHCCD 223

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MASAKA

MISC. APPLICATION NO. 117 OF 2020

(ARISING FROM MISC. CAUSE NO. 31 OF 2019)

KOBUTUGU EDISA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT

VERSUS

GEORGE IHORA MUSEVENI ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

*Before; Hon Lady Justice Victoria Nakintu Nkwanga Katamba*

RULING

This application was brought under Section 14 (2) b) & 33 of the Judicature Act, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 52 Rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking orders that;

- 1. A declaration that the acts of the Respondent in refusing to comply with the Consent Order entered on the 28th day of January, 2020 in Misc. Cause No. 31 of 2019 is an act of contempt of court; - 2. An order that the contemnor be committed to civil prison of the said contempt; - 3. An order that the Respondent as contemnor be ordered to purge the said contempt immediately by; - (i) signing for subdivision and transfer forms in favour of the Applicant for 100 acres of land comprised in LRV 1033 Folio 10 Mawogola Block 157 Plots 2 & 5 at Kyagatambo in addition to the Applicant's homestead, banana plantation and graveyard thereon which is approximately 2 acres; - (ii) immediately harvests his pine trees from the land given to the Applicant; - (iii) jointly with the Applicant instructs and equally meets the costs of as surveyor to demarcate the 100 acres in addition to approx.. 2 acres;

- 4. an order that the contemnor/respondent be approximately published through imposition of a five of Ugx. 30,000,000 and an order to pay punitive damages of Ugx. 50,000,000 as sanctions of the contempt of court; - 5. costs of the application be provide for.

The grounds of the application as contained in the affidavit of the Applicant, Kobutugu Edisa are briefly that;

- 1. the respondent instituted Misc. Cause No. 31 OF 2019 against the Applicant seeking to withdraw the caveat lodged by the Applicant on the land in LRV 1033 Folio 10 Mawogola Block 157 Plots 2 & 5 at Kyagatambo; - 2. the parties entered into a consent which was endorsed by court on the 28th day of January, 2020 and executed in full settlement of Misc. Cause No. 31 of 2019; - 3. the consent judgment and order was for among other terms that the Respondent transfers the land in LRV 1033 Folio 10 Mawogola Block 157 Plots 2 & 5 at Kyagatambo to the Respondent; - 4. the Respondent has deliberately disregarded the consent judgment by failing to fulfill the obligations arising out of the consent order; - 5. the respondent is bound by law to comply with the orders of court and refusal to comply amounts to contempt of court;

I have carefully perused the record/file and established that this application was filed on the 17th day of September, 2020, and Counsel for the Applicant wrote a letter dated the 25th September, 2020 seeking for a hearing date. There is no affidavit of service to prove that the Respondents were served with the instant application.

Order 5 Rule 1 is clear as to the mandatory requirement of service of court process within 21 days. The effect of non-service is provided under Order 5 Rule 3(c) which provides that where summons are not served within 21 days, the suit shall be dismissed without notice.

In Rashida Abdul Karim Hanali & Another –vs- Suleiman Adrisi Misc. Civil Application No. 009 of 2017, Mubiru J. while dismissing a suit for non-service of summons within 21 days stated that; the use of the word shall in Order 5 makes it mandatory to comply and serve within 21 days.

Entertaining this application with no evidence of service will be prejudicial to the Respondent and this court will not condemn the Respondent unheard.

The application is therefore dismissed for non-service.

No order is made as to costs.

I so order.

Dated at Masaka this 22nd day of October, 2021

Signed;

Victoria Nakintu Nkwanga Katamba 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.

Rashida Abdul Karim Hanali & Another v Suleiman Adrisi Misc. Civil Application No. 009 of 2017

Case cited

Section 14(2)(b) Judicature Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 33 Judicature Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 98 Civil Procedure Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 52 Rules 1 & 3 Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 5 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 5 Rule 3(c) Civil Procedure Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.