[2021] UGHCLD 85
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...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] UGHCLD 85
- Parties
- Applicant: Nkambwe Christopher; Applicant: Nondo Muhammad; Respondent: Sheeba Steven; Respondent: Nakalema Nazuula Justine
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1016 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- Kawesa, J
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Status Quo Orders, Removal of Caveats, Injunctive Relief
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nkambwe Christopher
Applicant
Nondo Muhammad
Applicant
Sheeba Steven
Respondent
Nakalema Nazuula Justine
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents are in contempt of court orders following the dismissal and reinstatement of the main suit.
- 2 Whether the actions taken by the respondents after the dismissal of the main suit amounted to contempt.
- 3 Whether the status quo should be reinstated pending determination of the main suit.
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....
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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
# **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