Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Muwanguzi v Kikayi (Miscellaneous Civil Application 78 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 983 (11 July 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the Respondent was served with a lawful order restraining him from interfering with the suit property, and that he had knowledge of the order. The Applicant's affidavit, supported by photographic evidence, established that the Respondent had the ability to comply but instead violated the order by renting out the property, resisting eviction efforts, and causing damage. The Respondent failed to oppose the application or deny the facts, which, under established legal principles, meant the facts were deemed admitted. The court concluded that all four elements of contempt were proved and held the Respondent liable for contempt of court.

Court disposition

application granted

Orders

  • A declaration that the Respondent committed contempt of a Court order.
  • A suspended sentence of six months' detention in Civil Prison for any further contempt of a Court order under Appln. No.182 of 2019 at the High Court of Uganda at Mbale.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay one million shillings as a fine for contempt of a Court order and exhibit receipt of payment within 60 days.
  • The Applicant is granted the costs of this application.

02

Material facts

Parties

Jane Muwanguzi

Applicant Counsel: Byamugisha Deus

Asuman Kikayi

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Fine for Contempt of Court: UGX 1,000,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ex Parte Ruling

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the Respondent is liable for contempt of Court.

Party arguments

Applicant
The Applicant argued that the Respondent was served with a lawful court order restraining him from dealing with the suit property, but he knowingly violated it by renting out the premises, resisting efforts to vacate tenants, breaking locks, removing iron sheets, and causing further damage. The Applicant supported these claims with photographs and an affidavit. The Applicant relied on case law establishing the elements of contempt and asserted that all four elements were satisfied.
Respondent
The Respondent did not file any opposition or affidavit in response to the application, despite being served and given an opportunity to do so.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Erasmus Masiko vs John Imaniraguha & Others HCMA No.1481 of 2016

    To prove contempt of court, four elements must be established: existence of a lawful order, knowledge of the order, ability to comply, and failure to comply.

  2. 02

    Samwiri Massa Vs. Rose Achen [1978] HCB 297

    Where facts are sworn in an affidavit and not denied by the other party, they are presumed accepted.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the Respondent was served with a lawful order restraining him from interfering with the suit property, and that he had knowledge of the order. The Applicant's affidavit, supported by photographic evidence, established that the Respondent had the ability to comply but instead violated the order by renting out the property, resisting eviction efforts, and causing damage. The Respondent failed to oppose the application or deny the facts, which, under established legal principles, meant the facts were deemed admitted. The court concluded that all four elements of contempt were proved and held the Respondent liable for contempt of court.

Obiter and limits

  • It is a settled principle that unopposed affidavit evidence is presumed accepted by the non-responding party.
  • The court's power to enforce its orders is essential to the administration of justice.

Court disposition

application granted

  • A declaration that the Respondent committed contempt of a Court order.
  • A suspended sentence of six months' detention in Civil Prison for any further contempt of a Court order under Appln. No.182 of 2019 at the High Court of Uganda at Mbale.
  • The Respondent is ordered to pay one million shillings as a fine for contempt of a Court order and exhibit receipt of payment within 60 days.
  • The Applicant is granted the costs of this application.

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

[2024] UGHC 983

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT TORORO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.078 OF 2023 ARISING FROM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.182 OF 2019 ALSO ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 033 OF 2019

JANE MUWANGUZI:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT VERSUS

ASUMAN KIKAYI:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT RULING

BEFORE: HON. DR. JUSTICE HENRY 1. KAWESA

This application was brought by way of a notice of motion under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 33 of the Judicature Act; and Order 52 R. I & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

It seeks the following orders:

- 1. That a declaration that the Respondent is in contempt of a Court order. - 2. An order committing the Respondent to civil prison for disobedience of lawful orders and contempt of Court . - 3. An order directing the Respondent to pay a fine for contempt of a Court order. - 4. The costs of this application be provided for.

The application is supported by the affidavit deposed to by the Applicant; and it is unopposed, though the Respondent was served.

On the 11th of April, 2024, when the application came up for hearing, the Court made an order for it to proceed ex parte. Therefore, the application proceeded exparte.

The Applicant is represented by Counsel Byamugisha Deus of M/S Stoneridge Advocates. The said Counsel filed written submissions which the Court considered and now determines the application as here below:

The issue for determination is:

Whether the Respondent is liable for contempt of Court ?

Counsel for the Applicant cited Erasmus Masiko vs John Imaniraguha & Others HCMA No.1481 of 2016 where it was held that to prove contempt, four elements must be proved, that is;

- 1. The existence of a lawful order. - 2. Knowledge of the order. - 3. The contemnor's ability to comply. - 4. The potential contemnor's failure to comply.

In this case, the record bears a temporary injunction order under Misc. Appln. No.182 of 2019 at the High Court of Uganda at Mbale, which was made in the presence of the parties hereto. The order, among others, restrained the Respondent from dealing, interfering with property comprised in FRV 111, Folio 19, Plot 5 Arubaine Way, Arubaine "A" North East, Busia Municipal Council until the disposal of the main suit," This sufficiently proves the existence of the first and second elements.

With regard to the third and fourth elements, the Applicant averred that after the issuance of the said order, the Respondent went ahead and rented out the suit premises to new tenants; that she tried to cause the said tenants to vacate but the Respondent resisted; and also that the Respondent entered into the premises, broke locks thereon, removed iron sheets and caused further damage to the suit property. The Applicant ably attached photographs supporting her averments, which the Court has seen.

It suffices that the Applicant's averments involve a matter of fact. It is a settled principle of law that where certain facts are sworn in an affidavit, the burden to deny them is on the other party and if he or she does not, they are presumed to have been accepted (Samwiri Massa Vs. Rose Achen [19781 HCB 297).

In this case, the Court finds that the Respondent accepted the averments in the Applicant's affidavit, having failed to oppose the application. To that extent, it deems the third and fourth elements as proved as well.

In conclusion, this Court finds that the issue is answered in the affirmative. Consequently, the following orders are hereby granted.

- 1. A declaration that the Respondent committed contempt of a Court order. - 2. A suspended sentence of six months' detention in Civil Prison for any further contempt of a Court order under Appln. No.182 of 2019 at the High Court of Uganda at Mbale. - 3. An order directing the Respondent to pay (one Million Shillings Only) as a fine for contempt of a Court order, and exhibit receipt of the same in this Court within 60 days hereof. - 4. An order granting the Applicant the costs of this application.

![](_page_2_Figure_6.jpeg)

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.

Erasmus Masiko vs John Imaniraguha & Others HCMA No.1481 of 2016

Case cited

Samwiri Massa Vs. Rose Achen [1978] HCB 297

Case cited

Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 33 of the Judicature Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 52 Rule 1 & 3 of the 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.