[2017] UGHCCD 211

[2017] UGHCCD 211

The court found that the applicant failed to substantiate or prove, on a balance of probability, that the respondents wilfully disobeyed the court order maintaining the status quo on the suit land. There were unresolved contradictions regarding the timing and responsibility for the transfers, lack of evidence as to which registrars made the entries, and the applicant's failure to pay registration fees for the order until after the alleged transfers. The court also noted that a caveat had been entered on the disputed titles, preventing further activity. As the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of contempt, and the respondents' explanations were not rebutted, the application was...

Citation
[2017] UGHCCD 211
Parties
Applicant: Mpagi Peter Kasule; Respondent: Wilson Sengonzi; Respondent: Dan Oundo; Respondent: Haruna Goloba
Court
HC: Civil Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
31 August 2017
Case Number
MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No 039 OF 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application for Contempt of Court
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
Elubu, J
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Status Quo Orders, Land Registration, Temporary Injunctions
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Contempt of Court Status Quo Orders Land Registration Temporary Injunctions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpagi Peter Kasule

Applicant

Wilson Sengonzi

Respondent

Dan Oundo

Respondent

Haruna Goloba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Cause / Ruling on Application for Contempt of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the court order maintaining the status quo on the suit land.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant proved contempt of court by the respondents on a balance of probability.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents should be punished for contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to substantiate or prove, on a balance of probability, that the respondents wilfully disobeyed the court order maintaining the status quo on the suit land. There were unresolved contradictions regarding the timing and responsibility for the transfers, lack of evidence as to which registrars made the entries, and the applicant's failure to pay registration fees for the order until after the alleged transfers. The court also noted that a caveat had been entered on the disputed titles, preventing further activity. As the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of contempt, and the respondents' explanations were not rebutted, the application was...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of the application.