[2017] UGHCLD 241

[2017] UGHCLD 241

The court found that the interim order in question was limited in duration and subject to further directions by the trial Judge. There was no evidence on record of subsequent directions extending or clarifying the order. The Applicants failed to provide specific and sufficient evidence to prove that the Respondents...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] UGHCLD 241
Parties
Applicant: Fatuma Dusto Nalumansi; Applicant: Mrs. Nsubuga Harriet; Applicant: Nkumbi Godfrey Salongo; Applicant: Nankya Regina; Respondent: Isa Bukenya; Respondent: Edward Ngobye
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
23 October 2017
Case Number
Misc Application No. 0872 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Kawesa, J
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Interim Orders, Burden of Proof, Evidence Act Application
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land and Property Contempt of Court Interim Orders Burden of Proof Evidence Act Application

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fatuma Dusto Nalumansi

Applicant

Mrs. Nsubuga Harriet

Applicant

Nkumbi Godfrey Salongo

Applicant

Nankya Regina

Applicant

Isa Bukenya

Respondent

Edward Ngobye

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents are in contempt of the interim court order dated 24th November 2015.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants have discharged the burden of proof required to establish contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the interim order in question was limited in duration and subject to further directions by the trial Judge. There was no evidence on record of subsequent directions extending or clarifying the order. The Applicants failed to provide specific and sufficient evidence to prove that the Respondents had disobeyed the court order. The affidavits presented amounted to conflicting assertions without corroborative proof. Applying the rules of evidence, the burden of proof was not discharged by the Applicants. Consequently, the application for contempt was not proved and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for contempt is dismissed.
  • Costs to be in the main cause.