Share
Nkambwe and Another v Sheeba and Another (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1016 of 2020) [2021] UGHCLD 85 (28 April 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] UGHCLD 85
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kawesa, J
- Case number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1016 of 2020
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kawesa, J
- Case number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1016 of 2020
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the actions complained of by the applicants were a direct result of the consequential orders issued after the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 884 of 2017. These included the removal of caveats and the lifting of temporary injunctive orders. By the time the main suit was reinstated, the status quo had already changed due to the lawful execution of the court's orders. The respondents' conduct did not amount to contempt, as they were acting under the authority of the court's previous orders. The court emphasized that the status quo should now be preserved until the main suit is determined, but dismissed the application for contempt, finding no basis for the allegations. Costs were ordered to abide the outcome of the main cause.
Court disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- Respondents are directed to desist from any actions that temper with the status quo until determination of the main suit.
- Costs to abide the main cause.
02
Material facts
Parties
Nkambwe Christopher
Applicant Counsel: KikomekoNondo Muhammad
Applicant Counsel: KikomekoSheeba Steven
Respondent Counsel: George MuhangiNakalema Nazuula Justine
Respondent Counsel: George Muhangi03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondents are in contempt of court orders following the dismissal and reinstatement of the main suit.
- 02
Whether the actions taken by the respondents after the dismissal of the main suit amounted to contempt.
- 03
Whether the status quo should be reinstated pending determination of the main suit.
- 04
Whether costs should be awarded to any party.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that the respondents acted in contempt of court by removing caveats and interfering with the status quo after the dismissal of the main suit. They sought reinstatement of the status quo and alleged that the respondents' actions were unlawful and prejudicial to their interests.
- Respondent
- The respondents, through counsel, contended that their actions were a direct consequence of the court's dismissal of the main suit and the consequential orders issued, including the removal of caveats and injunctive orders. They argued that these actions did not amount to contempt, as they were legally sanctioned by the court's orders.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Ugandan case law and general principles of civil procedure.
Actions taken pursuant to valid court orders do not amount to contempt of court.
- 02
Principle of interim preservation in civil litigation.
The status quo should be maintained pending determination of the main suit to prevent further prejudice.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the actions complained of by the applicants were a direct result of the consequential orders issued after the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 884 of 2017. These included the removal of caveats and the lifting of temporary injunctive orders. By the time the main suit was reinstated, the status quo had already changed due to the lawful execution of the court's orders. The respondents' conduct did not amount to contempt, as they were acting under the authority of the court's previous orders. The court emphasized that the status quo should now be preserved until the main suit is determined, but dismissed the application for contempt, finding no basis for the allegations. Costs were ordered to abide the outcome of the main cause.
Obiter and limits
- The court takes note of the status quo and directs respondents to desist from any actions that temper with it until determination of the main suit.
- Costs to abide the main cause.
Court disposition
application dismissed
- The application is dismissed.
- Respondents are directed to desist from any actions that temper with the status quo until determination of the main suit.
- Costs to abide the main cause.
Source and reliance status
HC: Land 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
LAND DIVISION
MISC. APPLICATION NO: 1016 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF MISC. APPLICATION NO: 1784 OF 2017) (ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO: 884 OF 2017)
1. NKAMBWE CHRISTOPHER
2. NONDO MUHAMMAD:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. SHEEBA STEVEN 2. NAKALEMA NAZUULA JUSTINE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::DEFENDANTS (*Administrator and Administratrix of the estate of the late Nathan Kituuse*)
BEFORE: HON. MR JUSTICE HENRY I. KAWESA
RULING:
I have perused the application. I have internalized the submissions on record. I am of the view that this application should fail. The reasons are that, on issue 1, it is a fact that the actions complained of were a consequence and effect of the order issued by Court order following the dismissal of CS NO: 884/2017 and decree issued upon which consequential order were granted on 02/05/2019.
This set in motion actions including removal of caveats and the temporary injunctive orders existing there on. By the time main suit was reinstated on 28th November 2019, and the Applicant moved this Court for reinstatements of the *status quo*, a lot had been set in motion giving rise to the actions complained of.
I therefore agree with Counsel for the Respondents that these actions do not amount to contempt. They were only the result of a change in the *status quo* following the dismissal of the main suit and the subsequent consequential orders of Court.
This finding sufficiently answers all complaints under issues 1, 2, 3, and 4. I do not find the Respondents in contempt of these Court's order. I do however take note of the *status quo*, and direct Respondent's to desist from any actions that temper with the status quo.
Let it remain as is until determination of the main suit. The application is accordingly dismissed.
Costs to abide the main cause. I so order.
............................ Henry I. Kawesa JUDGE 28/04/2021
28/04/2021:
Kikomeko for the Applicants.
George Muhangi for the Respondents.
Respondents present.
2 nd Applicant present.
The matter is for Ruling. We did not file a rejoinder. We pray that Court considers our submissions only.
............................ Henry I. Kawesa JUDGE 28/04/2021
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.