[2018] UGHCLD 43

[2018] UGHCLD 43

The court found that the Respondent was not in contempt of any court order. The transfers and developments on the suit land occurred during the period when a valid consent order was in force, which permitted such actions. The temporary injunction was reinstated only after the consent was set aside on 20th November 2017, and there was no evidence that the Respondent acted contrary to the court order after that date. The Applicant failed to prove that the Respondent transferred the suit land or undertook developments after the consent judgment was set aside. Therefore, the application for contempt was dismissed.

Citation
[2018] UGHCLD 43
Parties
Applicant: Edith Nakandi; Respondent: Umar Katongole
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
10 May 2018
Case Number
Misc. Application No. 252 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Kawesa, J
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Temporary Injunction, Status Quo Orders, Transfer of Land, Remedies for Contempt
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Contempt of Court Temporary Injunction Status Quo Orders Transfer of Land Remedies for Contempt

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edith Nakandi

Applicant

Umar Katongole

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent acted in contempt of the Court orders.
  2. 2 What remedies are available to the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent was not in contempt of any court order. The transfers and developments on the suit land occurred during the period when a valid consent order was in force, which permitted such actions. The temporary injunction was reinstated only after the consent was set aside on 20th November 2017, and there was no evidence that the Respondent acted contrary to the court order after that date. The Applicant failed to prove that the Respondent transferred the suit land or undertook developments after the consent judgment was set aside. Therefore, the application for contempt was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with no orders as to costs.