Rwenzori Commodities Ltd v Kiiza and 3 others (Miscellaneous Application 69 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 131 (28 February 2025)

**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT FORT PORTAL**

**MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 69 OF 2024**

**(ARISING FROM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 42 OF 2019 & CIVIL SUIT NO. 28 OF 2008)**

**RWENZORI COMMODITIES LIMITED ::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT**

**VERSUS**

1. **KIIZA LAWRENCE** 2. **BWIRINDA ALOZIO** 3. **GLOBAL ANTI-CORRUPTION INITIATIVE LIMITED** 4. **DR. SAM MAYANJA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENTS**

**BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE VINCENT WAGONA**

**RULING**

**Introduction:**

The Applicant never disclosed and/or stated the law under which this Application was filed but the same is filed by Notice of Motion and it seeks the following reliefs:

1. **The Respondents be held in contempt of court.** 2. **The Respondents be committed to civil prison as court deems fit on the circumstances as a sanction for contempt of court.** 3. **The Respondents including the directors of the 3rd Respondents be jointly and severally ordered to pay the Applicant UGX. 1,500,000,000/= (Uganda Shillings one Billion Five Hundred Million Only) as compensation for their actions of contempt of court.** 4. **The Respondent pays this court UGX. 1,500,000,000/= (Uganda Shillings one Billion Five Hundred Million Only) as a fine for their actions of contempt of court.** 5. **An Order that the 4th Respondent immediately purge themselves of the contempt of this court by immediately and unconditionally withdrawing his directive dated 15th May 2024 directing the Commissioner Land Registration to cancel the Applicant’s Certificate of Title comprised in LRV 2586 Folio 2 Plot Number 3 Block 127 Mwenge Kabarole District measuring approximately 141 Hectares (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”) in writing and vacating all orders affecting the said land.** 6. **A writ of sequestration doth issue placing the 4th Respondent’s salary and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ property at the disposal of this court to be used to recover any monies that the Applicant has used in defending their court awarded Decree.** 7. **Any other remedies in addition to the above that this court deems fit.** 8. **The respondents bear the costs of this application.**

**Grounds of the Application**:

The Application is grounded in the Affidavits of Mr. Thomas Joseph who is the Applicant’s General Manager and that of Mr. BwambaleJoneni from *M/s Bwamenda Bailiffs and Auctioneers*. They deposed in brief as follows; -

1. On 16th March 2020 vide Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2016, this Honourable Court issued an Order directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to grant vacant possession of land comprised in LRV 2586 Folio 2 Plot Number 3 Block 127 Mwenge to the Applicant. 2. On 7th March 2024, the 4th Respondent conspired with the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents to initiate a non-existent complaint against the Applicant in which it was claimed that the Applicant illegally procured its certificate of title for the suit land and that the Applicant was unlawfully evicting the 1st and 2nd Respondents and the parties they represent requiring the 4th Respondent to investigate and cancel the Applicant’s certificate of title. 3. By the letter dated 24th April 2024, the Applicant through his Lawyers of M/s Ngamije Law Consultants & Advocates wrote to the 4th Respondent notifying him of the existence of a court order, court warrant of vacant possession against the 1st and 2nd Respondents and others they represent as well as the consent judgement wherein the 1st and 2nd Respondents had agreed to vacate the land. That this letter was copied to the 3rd Respondent. 4. The Applicant notified the Respondents that the matter in dispute had been a subject of litigation over the same subject matter adjudicated upon by the High Court for which no appeal was preferred. And as such, the claims of illegal eviction could not arise. 5. The Respondents ignored this unequivocal court order, warrant of vacant possession and the judgement of court and continued with an illegal process in which they set up a parallel to hear the dispute after the court had concluded it and on 15th May 2024, the 4th Respondent wrote a letter directing the Commissioner Land Registration to cancel the Applicant’s Certificate of Title. 6. Despite being aware of this Court Order, the Respondent have continued acting in contempt and their intention us to make a mockery of justice and to render this court powerless to issue orders. 7. On 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th August 2024, the 1st and 2nd Respondents in utter disregard of the Court Order staged violence against the Applicant, storming the Applicant’s premises, blocking the rest of the workers and employers from accessing the disputed land. 8. The actions of the Respondents have interfered with execution of the Court Orders and the Warrant of Court. 9. The interests of justice and the need to avoid a multiplicity of suits dictate that courts cannot act in vain and that court proceedings must be respected and that the Respondents be held in contempt and the necessary fines and penalties be sanctioned.

**Service of the Pleadings**:

The Applicant filed this Application on 6th August 2024 together with the Applicant’s Written Submissions. On 5th September 2024, this Court directed that the Application together with the said Written Submissions be served onto the Respondents not later than 20th September 2024 and that an Affidavit of Service to that effect be filed on record. There are two Affidavits of Service on court record by Bateesa Esther a court process server working with *M/s Simon Tendo Kabenge & Co. Advocates* dated 25th September 2024 and 29th October 2024 respectively. The 3rd and 4th Respondents were duly served as evidenced by the existence of their respective Affidavits in Reply on Court record.

However in respect of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, in the earlier Affidavit of service dated 25th September 2024, the process server stated that upon receipt of the Pleadings for service upon the Respondents, she obtained an Affidavit in Reply which had been deponed by the 1st Respondent in Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2008 from which she learnt that the 1st& 2nd Respondents’ advocates are *M/s Owoyesigire, Muhereza & Co. Advocates*. That she consequently went to their offices located at Access House along Rubaga Road in Kampala who informed her that Counsel in personal conduct of the matter had ceased being a partner in the said law firm. That she was then directed to Namirembe Road and later to Plot 60 Salaama Road in Makindye but the 1st and 2nd Applicants’ counsel was absent in both addresses only to be informed later that Counsel Owoyesigire who was in personal conduct of the matter passed on about three years ago and that as a result, the firm was no longer in touch with the 1st and 2nd Respondents. At that point, the process server did not take any further steps to locate and serve the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

In the latter Affidavit of Service dated 29th October 2024, it simply states that on the 16th day of October 2024, she proceeded to the offices of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents of *M/s Ahamark Advocates* located at the ground floor of Raja Chambers along Parliamentary Avenue to who she served the Hearing Notice, the Applicant’s Written Submissions, the Notice of Motion and the Court Directives. The process server does not state what made her believe that *M/s Ahamark Advocates* had instructions to represent the 1st& 2nd Respondents. I have had the benefit of analysing the Affidavit in Reply filed in this matter by *M/s Ahamark Advocates* and there is no indication therein whatsoever that they had instructions to represent the 1st and 2nd Respondents in this matter; the only instructions they have are in respect of the 3rd Respondent.

It is therefore evident that the 1st and 2nd Respondents were never served with this Application and this in the absence of contrary evidence explains why they never filed an Affidavit in Reply.

**Order 49 Rule 2** of the **Civil Procedure Rules** provides that: *“All orders, notices and documents required by the Act to be given to or served on any person shall be served in the manner provided for the service of summons.”* **Order 49 Rule 2** implies that the rules under **Order 5** of the **Civil Procedure Rules** also apply to Applications like the instant one. (See: **The Registered Trustees of Madi West Nile Diocese versus Lucia Eyotaru and 7 others, HCMA. No.43 of 2021**). **Order 5 Rule 10** of the **Civil Procedure Rules** is to the effect that service of summons shall be made to the defendant in person or his/her appointed agent. It provides that: - *“Wherever it is practicable, service shall be made on thedefendant* ***in person****, unless he or she has an agent empowered to accept service, in which case service on the agent shall be sufficient.”*Therefore, service must be personal and service on the Respondent’s agent is only effective if the agent is empowered by the Respondent to accept service. (**See: Erukana Omuchilo vs. Ayub Mudiiwa [1966] EA 229**).

In the instant case, both Affidavits of service show that the Applicant did not take any effort to effect personal service upon the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The Process server only states that she served *M/s Ahamark Advocates* without stating how she came to know that this law firm is empowered to accept service on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that *M/s Ahamark Advocates* were the 1st and 2nd Respondent’s attorneys. The only evidence there is as seen from the 3rd Respondent’s Affidavit in Reply is that *M/s Ahamark Advocates* accepted service only on behalf of the 3rd Respondent. As a result, this Application is hereby dismissed as against the 1st and 2nd Respondents for non-service with no orders as to costs.

I will proceed with the merits of this Application only in respect of the 3rd and 4th Respondents who were duly served and did file their respective Affidavits in Reply.

**The 3rd Respondent’s Reply**:

The 3rd Respondent opposed the Application through the Affidavit of **Kakama Moses**, the Executive Director in the 3rd Respondent Company. He deposed in brief as follows; -

1. The Applicant has no cause of action against the 3rd Respondent and in reply to the entire Notice of Motion, the 3rd Respondent has never interfered, disobeyed and/or been in contempt of any court order in respect of Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 and Miscellaneous Application No. 69 of 2008. 2. The 3rd Respondent was wrongly sued. 3. In reply to Paragraph 9 of the Applicant’s supporting Affidavit deponed by Thomas Joseph, the Applicant is not aware of and is not privy to the alleged complaint against her and shall be put to strict proof thereof. 4. This application has no merit and thus the same should be dismissed with costs.

**The Applicant’s Rejoinder**:

In rejoinder to the 3rd Respondent’s Affidavit in Reply, Mr. Thomas Joseph averred in brief as follows; -

1. The 3rd Respondent’s Affidavit in Reply is riddled with falsehoods. 2. The instant Application against the 3rd Respondent is actuated by the acts of the 3rd Respondent’s Executive Director who represented the 1st and 2nd Respondent and all the individuals they represent to file a complaint to the 4th Respondent in contempt of the Court Order. 3. The 3rd Respondent’s Executive Director organised the 1st& 2nd Respondent to resist eviction, he appeared and spoke on behalf of the 1st& 2nd Respondent at a rally held at the disputed land by the 4th Respondent in utter contempt of the Court Order. 4. The 3rd Respondent’s Executive Director was involved in all acts of contempt of court and was listed as No. 4 as a member of the committee appointed by the 4th Respondent. 5. This Application is to punish the 3rd Respondent for disobedience of Court orders of eviction of the 1st& 2nd Respondent and the individuals they represent. 6. The 3rd Respondent is aware of the court order and through its current lawyers have filed Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2024 to set aside the same. 7. The 3rd Respondent’s attempt to differentiate itself as a legal person is an attempt to escape liability for the actions its Executive Director committed in its name and this court ought to reject it.

**The 4th Respondent’s Reply**:

The 4th Respondent who is a Minister of State for Lands since 2021 opposed this Application through his Affidavit in Reply wherein he stated in brief that; -

1. He was wrongly sued in his personal capacity for actions which were committed in his official capacity as the Minister of State for Lands and that he was maliciously added as a party to this suit. 2. His key roles as the Minister of State for Lands include settling land disputes and wrangles which are not subject to court adjudication, promoting security of tenure, among other issues. 3. His office received complaints from various residents on the land where the Applicant has certificates of title which it acquired with bonafide occupants thereon. The complaints were organised and a locus visit to the land was organised. 4. Some, but not all, of the residents on the disputed land sought legal recourse through the 1st& 2nd Respondents and challenged the Applicant’s title to the said land in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008. The Applicant resolved this matter out of court in 2017 by compensating some of the residents who had initiated the suit. 5. Several residents who were occupying the disputed land at the time of the suit’s initiation, and who eventually became claimants in the suit, were excluded from the proceedings and did not receive compensation for their interests on the disputed Land. 6. The process of compensating the residents was significantly flawed, with the Applicant using their influence and superior position to underpay and exploit the resident’s interest in the land. 7. The Applicant did not conduct any verification to identify all the residents living on the disputed land, assess the size of their occupation, or properly value each individual’s land holding. 8. The Court, in its Ruling, recognised that some of the residents who were not parties to the original suit and those who were not compensated could not be evicted by the Applicant. The order of vacant possession applied solely to the Plaintiffs in the Civil Suit and it did not extend to non-residents of the disputed land. 9. There are many other vulnerable residents occupying the disputed land who were not included in the suit and were not compensated for their interest, yet they are facing eviction from the Applicant. The Applicant is misinterpreting and misapplying the civil suit and its consequential orders to evict parties who were not part of the original suit and his eviction orders and warrant of eviction lacks a list of all affected parties and lack clarity on the areas where the eviction would be enforced.

**The Applicant’s Rejoinder**:

In rejoinder to the 4th Respondent’s Affidavit in Reply, Mr. Thomas Joseph averred in brief that; -

1. The 4th Respondent was sued for the decision he made as an individual occupying the office of the Minister of State for Lands and being a Minister of State does not put the 4th Respondent above the Courts of law or give him the mandate to disobey court orders. 2. The 1st and 2nd Respondents sought a representative order from this court to represent all the occupants on the suit land and the same was advertised and granted by this Court in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008. 3. The consent judgement and decree of court determined the 1st and 22nd Respondents and all the persons they represent occupying the suit land and are binding and were entered into and issued in the presence of the 1st and 2nd Respondent’s Advocates and endorsed by Court and the 4th Respondent has no power and cannot claim to determine its propriety, sufficiency or fairness in a response to a contempt of court matter.

**Representation and Hearing**:

***Mr. Simon Tendo Kabega*** appeared for the applicants and ***Mr. Buyinza Mark*** for the 3rd Respondent. The 4th Respondent is represented by ***M/s Kampala Associated Advocates*** who never appeared in Court nor filed written submissions. The Applicant’s and 3rd Respondent’s counsel addressed me on the merits of the application by way of written submissions which I have duly considered herein.

**Issues**:

This Application is already dismissed as against the 1st and 2nd Respondents for non-service. The following issues or questions arise from the pleadings and submissions of the 3rd and 4th Respondents for consideration by court:

1. ***Whether the 3rd and 4th Respondents are in contempt of the Court Orders issued in Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2019.*** 2. ***What remedies are available to the parties?***

**Issue No. 1: Whether the 3rd and 4thRespondents are in contempt of the Court Orders issued in Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2019**

**Submissions for the Applicant**:

The Applicant argued that on 16th March 2020, in Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2019, the learned *Hon. Lady Justice Elizabeth Jane Alividza* issued an order of vacant possession and eviction against the 1st and 2nd Respondents together with all the parties they represented under a representative order issued in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008. That consequently and pursuant to execution proceedings, on 7th July 2022, the learned Assistant Registrar of this Court issued an eviction order and a warrant of vacant possession against the 1st and 2nd Respondents. That all the Respondents were aware and bound by the Order and directives granted by this Court, and that despite having knowledge of the Court Order, the Respondents ignored the same and went ahead to hold a public hearing despising the Court Orders and issued directives contrary to Court Order.

**Submissions for the 3rd Respondent**:

The 3rd Respondent associated herself with the law and principles under which the instant application is brought as good law but argued that the application was misconceived, misapprehended and inapplicable to the instant application and that the Applicant has not led any evidence to prove that the 3rd Respondent is in contempt of the said court order.

**Applicant’s submissions in Rejoinder**:

In rejoinder, the Applicant insisted that the 3rd Respondent clearly disobeyed the Court Order by conniving with the 1st and 2nd Respondents to instigate illegal proceedings and directives in utter contempt of court.

**Consideration by Court**:

The ***Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th edition at page 390 describes*** contempt of court as the willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. It is any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct court in administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or its dignity. It is committed by a person who does any act in willful contravention of court’s authority or dignity, or tending to impede or frustrate the administration of justice, or by one who, being under the court's authority as a party to a proceeding therein, willfully disobeys its lawful orders or fails to comply with an undertaking which he has given.

In **Hon Hon. Sitenda Sebalu vs. The Secretary General of the East African Community, in Reference No. 8 of 2012*,*** the East African Court of Justice citing the authors of **Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition page 284 paragraph 458** described civil contempt thus: ***“it is a civil contempt to refuse or neglect to do an act required by a judgment or order of the court within the time specified in that judgment, or to disobey a judgment or order requiring a person to abstain from doing a specific act.”***

The main import of the doctrine of contempt of court is to ensure that the orders of court are respected and to protect the sanctity of the institution that issues such orders by seeing to it that the orders issued are put into effect. This was elaborately brought out by **Romer J in Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] All ER*,*** where he relied on the case of (**Church v Cremer (1 Coop Temp Cott 342**) where it was held thus; ***"A party who knows of an order whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it. . . as long as it existed".*** The doctrine is also hinged on the principle of law that the whole purpose of litigation as a process of judicial administration is lost if orders by court through the set judicial process, in the normal functioning of the courts are not complied with in full by those targeted and/or called upon to give due compliance. Further, it is not for that party to choose whether or not to comply with such order. (See **Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another vs. Edward Musisi, Miscellaneous. Application No. 158 of 2010).**

In addition to the above, orders of court must be complied with in totality in all circumstances by the party concerned, subject to the party's right to challenge the order in issue in such a lawful way as the law permits. It is the position of the law that to disobey an order of court or offer no explanation for non-compliance to the issuing court, at any party's choice or whims, on the basis that such an order is null or irregular, or is not acceptable or is not pleasant to the party concerned is to commit contempt of court. (**See Andrew KilamaLajul vs. Uganda Coffee Development Authority & 2others, Misc. Application No. 324 of 2020).**

In our legal, constitutional and jurisprudential matrix, the doctrine of contempt is not provided for in any statutory legislation either principal or subsidiary. Recourse is therefore made to the common law and the doctrines of equity as far as possible. Therefore a review of case law on contempt is instructive as it offers in-depth guidance **(See Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2015, Jingo LivingstoneMukasa vs. Hope Rwaguma at page 13).**Courts in adjudication of contempt of court claims always refer to the provisions of section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap. 71 and Section 33 of the Judicature Act and the guidance from case law in Uganda and from common law jurisdictions.

The East African Court of Justice in ***Hon.* Sitenda Sebalu vs. The Secretary General of the East African Community, in Reference No. 8 of 2012**laid down the test or grounds which must be proved in order to succeed on an application for contempt thus: ***“To prove contempt, the complainant must prove the four elements of contempt, namely:***

1. ***Existence of a lawful order;*** 2. ***The Potential Contemnor’s knowledge of the Order;*** 3. ***The potential contemnor’s ability to comply;*** 4. ***The potential contemnor’s failure to comply.”***

The court also laid down the standard of proof where it was stated thus: ***“The standard of proof in contempt proceedings must be higher than proof on the balance of probabilities, and almost, but not exactly, beyond reasonable doubt. The jurisdiction to commit for contempt should be carefully exercised with the greatest reluctance and anxiety on the part of the court to see whether there is no other mode which can be brought to bear on the contemnor”.***

1. **Existence of a lawful order**:

In **Lukenge Hakim Vs. HajjatAjiri Namagembe and others, Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 0290 of 2020**, the court of appeal cited the position in **Carrey v Laiken (2015) 2 RCS 79**where court noted that the order alleged to have been breached must equivocally state what should and should not be done.

I have critically examined the record of court and found that vide **Miscellaneous Cause No. 59 of 2008, Kiiza Lawrence &Anor vs. Rwenzori Commodities Ltd & Another**, on 15th September 2008, this Court gave the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein permission to sue the Applicant herein and a one *Amirali Kamali*, in a representative action, on their behalf and on behalf of and for the benefit of **38** formerly bonafide occupants and customary owners of land at Kakorogoto Mwenge, Kabarole District. The 38 people who the 1st and 2nd Respondents were to represent in a representative suit are: - Ndahura Yusuf ; Rwasimitana; Kiiza Lawrence; BwerindaAlozio; Businge Edison; Kakuliremu Leona; Byaruhanga John; Kamara Christopher; Matama; Byaruhanga John Kusemererwa Joseph; MusabeWeleen; Bomeera Joseph; Bagonza; KaijaBwengendaho; Mugisa Edward; Asaba Charles; KasangakiRwamuhumbu; Birungi Julius; Mrs. Bomera; Tunga c/o Mukoona; Ndahura Yusuf; Katalibabu; KisemboBihogo; OmuherezaKajumba; NkundaBakama; Mwebembezi; Sunday John; Kabanywani John; Tusabe Gabriel; Nyambere; Rwamukunyu; Baguma Stephen; BaliremwaWalen; Bahemuka Thomas; Mwesige Welen; Musenene Stephen; BiramaihireWelen

Having received the representative order for the above 38 people, the 1st and 2nd Respondent brought Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 against the Applicant and a one *Amirali Kamali*. The 1st and 2nd Respondents had brought the suit collectively for compensation against the Applicant and the said *Amirali Kamali*, who they alleged, had unlawfully converted, transferred and evicted them from their land forming part of Block 127, Mwenge, Kabarole District. In the suit, the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein were challenging their alleged forceful eviction from the land without fair and adequate compensation as well as the conversion of the land from customary tenure. On 21st November 2017, Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 was concluded by way of a consent judgment wherein, the 1st and 2nd Respondents and the above 38 former customary occupants voluntarily agreed to be paid a total sum of Ug. Shs. 147,000,000/= (One Hundred Forty Seven Million Uganda Shillings Only) and that each of the Plaintiffs (1st and 2nd Respondents herein) and the other 38 former customary occupants of the land would be paid Ug. Shs. 3,500,000/= (Three Million, Five Hundred Thousand Uganda Shillings Only) as a final settlement for all their claims or interest in the suit land now comprised in LRV 2586 Folio 2, Plot 3, block 127, Mwenge, Kabarole District. It was also a term of the consent judgment that upon receipt of the sums as stated above, the 1st and 2nd Respondent and all the other 38 claimants would have no further claim whatsoever against the Applicant herein in respect of the said land.

However, it appears that despite the existence of the said consent judgment in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008, the dispute still remained unresolved leading to the filing of **Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2019,** by the Applicant herein jointly with *Amirali Kamali*, for consequential orders of eviction, against the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein as well as against other third parties, to wit;-

* 1. ***Nkunda Bakama*,** who is listed as one of the Plaintiffs in the representative order; 2. ***Tusungwire Rwasemutana*,** who is not party to the consent but claims under (deceased) who was a party; 3. ***Sunday John Businge*,** who was not a party to the consent but accepted to receive compensation under the consent; and 4. ***Agaba Jack,*** who was not part of the Plaintiffs judgment in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008, was never part of the consent judgment and whose land was never surveyed by the District Surveyor.

The court took the initiative to categorize the above persons into groups and held that; people like **NkundaBakama** and **Rwasimitana** (deceased) who were listed as Plaintiffs in the representative Order are bound by the consent judgment even if they never signed it since they were duly represented by the 1st and 2nd Respondents; and that persons like **Sunday John Businge** who were not party to the suit but accepted compensation under the consent judgment should also be evicted. However, the Court also held that third parties like **Jack Agaba** who was not party to the suit cannot be bound by the said consent judgment. In the final result, the Court issued the following Orders, in **Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2019**, against the 1st and 2nd Respondents who were also the Plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008; -

1. **Vacant possession be effected for all the Plaintiffs (Respondents) since they are bound by the Consent Judgement in the representative suit of 028 of 2008.** 2. **Any aggrieved persons should file objector proceedings since there has been no application to set aside the consent judgement.** 3. **The Applicants gives them 60 days to leave after which they should be evicted.** 4. **Each party bears their own costs.**

I accordingly find that there exists a lawful consequential order of eviction against all the Plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 that are bound by the consent judgement entered into on 21st November 2017. Fortified by the case of ***Carrey v Laiken (supra)*** where it was noted that the order alleged to have been breached must equivocally state what should and should not be done, I must also note that this consequential order of eviction issued in **Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2019** does not extend to non-parties to Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008. The Ruling of the Court specifically prohibits the application of the consequential order against non-parties to the suit.

1. **Potential contemnors knowledge of the order**:

It is a requirement of the law that for one to be found in contempt, he or she should have knowledge of the order. The knowledge should not be assumed but should be actual. Proof of knowledge may be by way of proof of service of the order upon the contemnor or by implication that the contemnor by his conduct directly or indirectly had knowledge of the order.

Under **Paragraph 10 (a)** of the 4th Respondent’s Affidavit in Reply, he states that he is aware that some of the residents on the disputed land sought recourse through the 1st and 2nd Respondents in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 which was resolved out of Court in 2017. The 4th Respondent therefore had knowledge of the Consent Judgment in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008. Under **Paragraphs 10 (g), (h) and (i)** of his Affidavit in Reply, he contends that he is aware of the Ruling in **Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2019**.

Under Paragraphs 8 and 9 of his Affidavit in Reply, the 4th Respondent averred that his office received complaints in respect of the suit land. In his letter dated 7th March 2024 addressed to the Resident District Commissioner of Kyenjojo District, (*a copy whereof is attached as Annexture “H” under Paragraph 9 of Mr. Thomas Joseph’s Affidavit in Support of the Application)*, the Applicant reveals that his office was petitioned by the 3rd Respondent about the threat of eviction of over 800 people of Kakorogoto Nkainga II cell in Mwenge South Constituency. Under Paragraph 13 of his Affidavit in Reply, the 4th Respondent further states that he was informed about the Ruling in **Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2019** by the 3rd Respondent’s Director. I therefore find that the 3rd Respondent also had knowledge of the existence of the Order.

1. **Potential contemnor’s ability to comply**:

Learned Counsel for the Applicant did not address me on this and there is also no objection whatsoever from the Respondents about their ability to comply with the Court Order. I therefore find that the 3rd and 4th Respondents had the ability to comply with the Court Order.

1. **The potential contemnors failure to comply**:

I have critically analysed the import of the Ruling and the Orders of Court issued in **Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2019.** The consequential order of eviction issued in **Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2019** does not extend to non-parties to Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008. The Ruling of the Court specifically prohibits the application of the consequential order against non-parties to the suit.

It appears that the suit land is occupied by different people including third parties like **Agaba Jack** and others who were never party to the suit and the consent judgment and yet in execution, the warrant of vacant possession, and the eviction notice were issued against the 1st and 2nd Respondents and their agents, servants, tenants and anyone claiming under them without clarifying the particulars of the said agents, servants and anyone claiming under them, thereby creating a blanket kind of execution that has the likely effect of affecting innocent third parties.

In the case of **Caltex Oil (U) Limited vs. Petro (Uganda) Limited and Sam Kironde Miscellaneous Application No.279 of 2004 (Arising from Misc. Application No. 86 of 2004 and C. S no. 533 of 2002**, the *Hon. Lady Justice M. S Arach Amoko* (as she then was) defined execution as per the 17th Halsbury’s Laws (4th Edition) Para 401 as follows;

*“The word execution in its widest sense signifies the enforcement of or giving effect to the judgments or orders of courts of justice. In a narrower sense, it means the enforcement of those judgments or orders by a public officer under the writs of fiery facias, elegit, sequestration, attachment, possession, delivery, fieryfacias de bonis ecclesiastics, etc.”*

Execution in basic terms is the process of realizing the fruits of a judgment by enforcing the Decree against the unsuccessful party through any one of the various modes of execution as by law prescribed. It means, quite simply, the process for enforcing or giving effect to the Judgment of the Court. Therefore, a successful litigant is limited to enforcing the Orders of the Court in execution and he/she cannot be permitted to go beyond them and deviate from giving effect to the orders of court.

I have critically examined the pleadings and all the annextures affixed thereto and I find that there is no dispute over the eviction of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and the 38 people who they represented in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008; the dispute is only in respect of the eviction of third parties who were never party to the said suit. I have examined the directives of the 4th Respondent and their impact on the orders of the court. It is my finding that these directives were meant to prevent the Applicant from exceeding the orders of the court and evicting persons who were not party to the suit and against whom the Court held that the consequential orders would not apply. In effect, the directives were meant to protect the third parties who are resident on the land against the indiscriminate eviction process that that the Applicant had commenced. I find no act done by the 3rd or 4th Respondent, contrary to the orders of court since the warrant of vacant of possession did not specify the exact persons facing eviction. In the absence of such clarity in the orders of eviction, I am unable to find that the 3rd and 4th Respondents failed to comply with the Court Orders.

I find that the Applicant has on a balance of probabilities failed to prove their claims against the Respondents. In the result, this application fails and it is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to costs as the application appears to have been prompted by a genuine misunderstanding of the intentions of the other party. I so order.

**Dated at Fort Portal this 28th day of February 2025**


Vincent Wagona

High Court Judge

**FORTPORTAL**