Banadda & Another v Nalubowa
Banadda & Another v Nalubowa (Miscellaneous Application 2297 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 287 (29 November 2024)
The court found that while a lawful temporary injunction order existed and the respondent was aware of it, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the respondent personally committed the acts alleged to constitute contempt. The evidence at locus indicated that the structural changes and blockage of the passage were not attributable to the respondent but to other parties not before the court. The respondent's shop remained unchanged, and the applicants failed to demonstrate willful disobedience of the court order by the respondent. As such, the threshold for contempt was not met, and the…
Source excerpt
- Contempt Of Court
- Status Quo Orders
- Temporary Injunctions
- Structural Alterations
- Land Disputes