Juuko Lawrence Ssango v Michael Jenkins Katende and John Katende (Civil Application Reference No. 1 of 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 300 (7 October 2024)

#### THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA LAND DIVISION

## **CIVIL REFERENCE APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2024**

#### ARISING FROM MISC. APPLICATION NO. 122 OF 2023

### ALSO ARISING FROM MISC. APPLICATION NO.697 OF 2018

ALSO ARISING FROM MISC. APPLICATION NO.696 OF 2018 & 318 OF 2018

ALL ARISING FROM CONSOLIDATED CIVIL SUITS NO. 358 OF 2018 AND CIVIL SUIT NO. 650 OF 2021 FORMERLY CIVIL SUIT NO. 046 OF 2018

JUUKO LAWRENCE SALONGO ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: **VERSES**

#### 1. MICHEAL JIKENS KATENDE

2. JOHN KATENDE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

## BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE NABAKOOZA FLAVIA. K RULING.

The Applicant being dissatisfied and/ or aggrieved by the decision of the Assistant Registrar delivered on 21/08/2023, filed the instant appeal by way of Notice of Motion/Civil Reference under Section 98 and 68 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 8 Rules 1, 2, and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for; -

a. An order that the decision of the Assistant Registrar delivered on 21<sup>st</sup> day of August 2023 in Misc. Application No. 122 of 2023 arising from Misc. Application No. 697 of 2018, Misc. Application No. 696 of 2018 and 318 of 2018 all arising from consolidated Civil Suit No. 358 of 2018 and 650 of 2021 formerly Civil Suit No. 46 of 2018 be reversed/set-aside.

$\mathsf{S}$

b. That the Assistant Registrar erred in law and fact when she found the Respondents knowledgeable of the Court orders in Misc. Application No. 697 of 2018, Misc. Application No. 696 of 2018 and Misc. Application No. 318 of 2018 arising from Consolidated Civil Suits No. 358 of 2018 & 650 of 2021 formerly CS No. 46 of 2018 but failed to hold them in contempt of court orders.


Page 1 of 5

Adding

7/10/2024

- c. Costs of the application be paid by the Respondents. - d. Any other order this Honorable court may deem fit.

The Appeal is premised on the grounds contained in the notice of motion and the affidavit in supported deposed by Mr. Juuko Lawrence Ssalongo (the Applicant herein). Briefly, they are that the Applicant filed Misc. Application No. 122 of 2023 for contempt of orders of court vide Misc. Application No. 697 of 2018, Misc. Application No. 696 of 2018 and 318 of 2018 all arising from consolidated Civil Suit No. 358 of 2018 and 650 of 2021 formerly Civil Suit No. 46 of 2018. The application was heard and dismissed by the learned Assistant Registrar on 21/08/2023.

The Appeal was opposed by both Respondents who filed affidavits in reply. Michael Jekins Katende (the Ft Respondent herein) deposed that the Applicant's application for contempt of court under HCMA No. 122 of 2023 was duly considered and dismissed by the Assistant Registrar. That the learned Assistant Registrar did not error in law or fact in dismissing the Application as she correctly evaluated the evidence and found no merit. That he has never been in contempt of court and that the instant application is an abuse of court process intended to harass him. That the application should be dismissed with costs.

On his part, the 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondent (Katende John) averred that they have never been parties to the said suits, never entered any consent nor given notice of the same until after 2021. That the learned Assistant Registrar rightly dismissed the application for contempt since it was found to be very identical with MA No. 863 of 2023. That he has never interfered with the status quo on Plot 19 and it has remained as it was. That all the consents were agreed upon and signed by the parties and their Counsel. He prayed that this application is denied and dismissed with costs.

The Applicant's affidavit in rejoinder whose details are on record.

**Legal Representation**. The Applicant was represented by Counsel Kenneth Kakande, Mutesaasira Josephat, Racheal Namiwulya and Majida Atulinda; the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent was represented by Counsel Ambrose Tebyesa while the 2<sup>nd</sup> Respondent was represented by Counsel Kakeeto Muhamood.

The Applicant raised the following issues for resolution;

Whether the Assistant Registrat erred in law and fact when she found the Respondents knowledgeable of the court orders in MA No.967 of 2018 and

$10.2024$

Page 2 of 5

Adding 7/10/2024

i.

Misc. Application No. 318 of 2018 arising from consolidated Civil Suita No. 358 of 2018 and 650 of 2021 formerly CS No. 46 of 2018 but failed to hold them in contempt of the court orders?

Whether the said decision of the Assistant Registrar in Misc. Application No. ii. 122 of 2023 can be revised or set-aside?

Before I go in to the merits of this appeal, I will have to first consider whether the Assistant Registrar had jurisdiction to handle, hear or dispose of an Application of contempt of court filed by the Applicant.

The jurisdiction of court is not a matter of suggestion but of law and must be specifically provided for under the law. The powers exercised by the Registrar are specific and they are governed by Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules. (The civil procedure (Amendment) rules, 2019 S. I No.33). Order 50 Rule 6 provides that the Registrar is deemed a civil court for purposes of rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this Order.

I have perused the application under MA No. 122 of 2023. The Applicant herein sought the following reliefs; - A declaration order that the acts of the Respondents are repeatedly, knowingly and willingly disobeying the court orders in Misc. 75 Application No. 697 of 2018, Misc. Application No. 696 of 2018, Misc. Application No. 318 of 2018 and Orders of consolidated suits No. 358 of 2018 and Civil Suit No. 650 formerly Civil Suit No. 46 of 2018 from Mpigi High Court are unlawful, illegal and amount to contempt of court Orders; that the Respondents be ordered to pay 69,000,000/- for the property destroyed during the eviction of the Applicant 80 from the suit land; that the Respondents be punished by detention in Civil Prison and to shun from interfering with the quite possession of the Applicant in his kibanja measuring approximately 10.20 acres; that the contemnors be further punished by imposition of a penalty as court may deem fit; that the contemnor be ordered to pay 120,000,000/- as damages caused to the Applicant; a permanent injunction doth 85 issue against the Respondents by restraining them from any further interference, sale, and further developments of the suit land until the question before this honorable court have been heard and determined on merit. That the Respondent be committed to civil prison for a period this honorable court deems fit, costs and any 90 other orders.

From the above remedies claimed, it is apparent that the Applicant never wanted to only enforce the orders issued by this court, but he included new causes when he prayed for compensation of 69,000,000/-, damages of 120,000,000/-, detention and

$10.24$

Page 3 of 5 Adding 7/10/2024

a permanent injunction on the suit land which had not been previously ordered by court under orders allegedly breached.

The jurisdiction to grant the above mentioned orders especially an order of a permanent injunction lies with the Judge of the High-Court and not the Registrar; because, permanent or final injunctions are granted as a remedy against an infringement or violation which has been proven at trial. This is done after leading evidence (See Akena & Anor Vs Opwonya CA No. 35 of 2016).

In the case of Kassim Vs Soroti District Land Board & 2 Ors, MA No. 77 of 2020, my learned brother Asiimwe J pointed out that, ideally, contempt is not one of the matters or powers stipulated under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Orders of the Registrar are orders of the High court even if they are given in interlocutory matters, and once they are defied, the jurisdiction to deal with such contempt is with the High-Court judge and not a registrar'. I am persuaded by this holding.

Similarly, in the case of Dawaru Vs Angumale & Anor, (Misc. Civil Application No. 96/2016), my learned brother Mubiru J pointed out that, "every judicial officer presiding over court proceedings has power to punish for contempt committed in the face of court. This intended power is intended to enable the court to preserve its decorum and maintain dignity...a Registrar therefore 115 has the inherent power to deal with contempt committed in the face of court. However, for contempt that is not committed in the face of court, it is suigeneris. It is instituted by a litigant through a motion bringing to the attention of court conduct believed to be contempt of court. I therefore cannot read into the jurisdiction expressly conferred by order 50 of the CPR 120 the power to punish for civil contempt, other than the contempt in the face of court".

Consequently, a Registrar who exercises jurisdiction to impose a sanction for civil contempt at the instance of the party to litigation, acts without jurisdiction and the 125 resultant orders are a nullity (Per Musota J in Aniceta Abio Dramadri Vs Elwoku Richard & 2 Ors Misc. Civil Application No. 14 of 2016 & 003 of 2016).

On that basis, I find that the learned Assistant Registrar exercised a jurisdiction not vested in her and the resultant orders have no legal effect on the parties. The issue 130 is resolved in the negative, and this determines the entire application.

bute

Page 4 of 5

Adding

7/10/2024

I accordingly grant this application by setting aside the ruling and the orders in MA No. 122 of 2023. Each party shall bear own costs.

Signed, dated and delivered at Kampala this. The day of October 2024.

Nabakooza F avia. K Judge

135