TASK A

Facts
Festo Kyoheirwe, narrates that his land in Manyangwa is about to be taken by a one John
Magoba, who has this morning started pouring construction materials on the same. He brought
several casual workers on site, who have started digging a foundation. He instructed M/s R & M
Advocates who filed his case in Court but he feels they are slow and may not prevent Magoba
from taking his land and. He has a copy of the Plaint.

Issues
I. Whether M/S Batte &Co. Advocates can intervene into an already existing suit?
II. Whether Festo Kyoheirwe can apply for a temporary injunction in the circumstances?
III. What steps would I take in order to effectively protect Festo Kyoheirwe interests against
the looming eviction from the Suit land?
IV. What are the necessary documents?
V. What is the forum and the procedure?
VI. What submissions would I rely on in court to support my application for temporary
injunction?

Law applicable.
Judicature Act Cap 16
Civil procedure Act cap 282
Civil procedure rules SI 71-1
Civil Procedure Amendment Rules SI 33/2019
Case Law

Resolution
Issue one. Whether M/S Batte &Co. Advocates can intervene into an already existing suit?

Intervention by counsel.
This can either be upon filing a notice of joint counsel to court or one of change of advocates.
Mere acceptance of instructions is not sufficient. A plaint must indicate the plaintiff’s address of
service (O. 7 r. 1 (b) CPR; Until a notice of joint counsel or change of advocates is filed in court,
the recognized agent/advocate of the plaintiff for purposes of service and court appearances and is
the plaintiff’s address of service (O. 3 r. 1 & 4 CPR). In accordance, to the case of Ayebazibwe
Raymond v Barclays Bank and Others HCCS No. 165 of 2015, that counsel that has been given
instructions cannot be permitted to participate in the proceedings unless and until he has been given
a notice of instructions to appear jointly with Dr. James Akampumuza on behalf of the plaintiff.
In accordance to our instant facts, M/s Batte & Co. Advocates will file a joint notice of
instructions in court in order so that it acts with the M/s R&M Advocates had already obtained
instructions from Festo Kyoheirwe.

Issue two.
Whether Festo Kyoheirwe can apply for a temporary injunction in the circumstances?

Its trite law that a temporary injunction is a form of an interlocutory remedy, the effect of
which is directing a party to the proceedings to do or restraining from doing a particular act
until the final determination of the matter in controversy. For court to entertain an application
for a temporary injunction, there must be a pending suit.

The granting of a temporary injunction is at the discretion of court exercised judicially as

analyzed in the case of Alley Route Ltd vs. Uganda Development Bank Ltd HCMA No. 634.
O. 41 r 1 (a) of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 provides that where in any suit it is proved by
affidavit or otherwise that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged
or alienated by any party to the suit or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree.
In light to the facts at hand, John Magoba, started pouring construction materials on the same plot
of land. He, also brought several casual workers on site, who have started digging a foundation.
Therefore, the application can be granted on the basis of interference with the status quo.
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to maintain the status quo until the final determination
of issues in controversy thus in the case of Jan Mohammed vs. Kasamali Virji Madhani (1953)
20 EACA 8.

In the case of Samuel Mayanja vs. Uganda Revenue Authority HCMA 17/2005, Justice Egonda
Ntende held that the provisions of O.41 r 1&2 CPR deals with applications for a temporary
injunction as an interlocutory matter in a pending proceeding before court. That here there is no
pending proceeding before this court. In light to the facts at hand, the Applicant lodged a suit Vide
HCCS No ……. Of 2025 for a Permanent Injunction

Considerations for Grant of Temporary Injunction.

The principles for the grant of a temporary injunction, Justice Odoki had the opportunity of
articulating them in the case of Kiyimba Kagwa vs. Katende [1985] HCB 4 and they are stated as
follows.
Existence of a primafacie case
The purpose of there being a primafacie case is that the respondent should not unnecessarily be
prevented from exercising his/her right unless the applicant has a good case against the respondent.
It is a pre-requisite that the applicant should have instituted the suit against the respondent before
applying for an injunction.
In the case of Re Sarah Nalwanga (1974) HCB 136, after considering the fact that the purpose of
granting a temporary injunction is to maintain the status quo, court held that the applicant must
disclose that he or she has a primafacie case against the respondent. In Kiyimba Kagwa vs.
Katende Court observed that a primafacie case does not necessarily mean a good case but means
a case with probability of success. In answering the question whether there was a primafacie case,
court noted that there was serious question of ownership of land and that the applicant had proved
that he had a primafacie case with probability of success.
The principle for the applicant to show a prima facie case with a strong probability of success has
been criticized in the case of American Cyanamid Co. Ltd vs. Ethicon [1975] 1 ALL E.R 504
where Lord Diplock at page 510 held that there is no requirement for the plaintiff to establish a
prima facie case. All the plaintiff needs to show by his action is that there are serious questions to
be tried and that the action is not frivolous or vexatious. The task of court is to consider whether
the applicant’s application discloses an arguable case which merits trial.

In accordance to the facts at hand, that on the 19th /09/2007 the applicant purchased 2.5 acres
of land to be subdivided from Kyadondo plot 539 land at Manyangwa from Paul Francis
Sebwana at a cost of Ug Shs 55,000,000 (fifty-five million) which could comprise of a triable
issue.

Irreparable Injury / Damage.

Whether the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted depends
on the facts of each case. In the case of NITCO Ltd vs. Hope Nyakairu [1992-93] HCB 135, Court
held that on the facts of the case the applicant hadn’t proved that he would suffer irreparable injury
if the injunction wasn’t granted. In Kiyimba Kagwa vs. Katende Court defined irreparable damage
or injury to mean that there must not be physical injury but the injury must be substantial or a
material one i.e. one that can’t be adequately compensated by damages.
In regards to the facts at hand, the applicant will suffer irreparable damage since he is in
possession and it will be difficult for him to find an alternative land with in the area.

Balance of Convenience
The third test is only applied where the court is in doubt on the first two principles and that is that
of balance of convenience. This requires that the court weighs the convenience of complying with
the injunction on part of the respondent against the damage that the applicant would suffer if the
injunction isn’t granted. If the damage outweighs the inconvenience, then the applicant would be
granted the injunction. In the case of UCB vs. General parts, Court held that the applicant was a
small company compared to the respondent and as such the applicant was likely to be more
inconvenienced if its property was sold.
In Kiyimba Kagwa vs. Katende the balance of convenience was in favor of granting the relief to
the plaintiff who was in possession and was likely to suffer more damages if the land in question
was interfered with. In line with the facts at hand, applicant will suffer irreparable damage since
he is in possession of the land already.

Conclusively, the issue as to Whether Festo Kyoheirwe can apply for a temporary injunction
and interim injunction in the circumstances is here by addressed in affirmative as discussed
above.

Issue three
What steps would I take in order to effectively protect Festo Kyoheirwe’s interests against
the looming eviction from the Suitland?

Interim injunction
Interim orders are sought by parties if there is a pending application before the court and there is
a real likelihood that the application will be rendered nugatory by the application of the parties.
Pending application refers to temporary injunction.

Order 50(3A) of the Civil Procedure amendment rules provide for an application for exparte
interim order, the court shall in all cases before granting relief for an interim order directs notice
in the application to be given to the opposite party except where it appears that giving of such
notice would cause undue delay and that the object of granting the interim relief would thereby be
defeated.

Grounds for an application of interim injunction.

O.50(3A) (2) of the Civil Procedure amendment rules of 2019 provides all applications for
interim relief shall be inter parties except for exceptional circumstances and shall include
(a) where the matter is urgent in nature
(b) where there is a real threat or danger
(c) where the application is made in good faith.
(4) an application for exparte interim application shall be made orally.

Therefore, since there is a pending application which is a temporary injunction of the suit land and
in order to restrain Magoba from carrying out activities on the suit land Mr. Festo can obtain an
interim protective order from court.

Issue four
What is the procedure and forum for applying for a temporary injunction?

Order 41 r 9 of the civil procedure rules provides that the procedure and the order under
this order shall be by summons in chambers.
Forum
In Uganda the court’s jurisdiction to grant injunction is derived from section 42 of the Judicature
Act specifically provides that the High Court shall have powers to grant an injunction to restrain
any person from doing any act as may be specified by Court. Magistrates’ courts too have powers
to grant injunctions by virtue of their civil jurisdiction under section 98 Civil Procedure Act,
Cap. 282.
Order 11A r7 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules of 2019, registrars have the powers
and jurisdiction to handle interlocutory applications.
O.11r. 6 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) of 2019, to be served onto other party in less than
7 days before hearing of the summons. The reply to this application shall be within 15 days from
the date of service.
Issue five
What are the necessary documents?
Chamber summons under Order 41 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1.

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DIVISON)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. ………..OF 2025
(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO.42... OF 2024)

FESTO KYOHEIRWE …………………………………………. APPLICANT

VERSUS
JOHN MAGOBA……………………………………. RESPONDENT

CHAMBER SUMMONS

(Under Order .41 Rule 1 and 8 Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1, and Section. 98 of Civil
Procedure Act, cap. 282. and Section 42 of the Judicature Act, Cap. 16.)

LET ALL PARTIES appear before the learned judge in chambers at Kampala High Court on the
17th day of January, 2025 at 9.00 O’clock in the forenoon or soon thereafter as counsel for the
applicant can be heard for orders that:

1. A temporary Injunction is issued against the respondent, its agent, restraining them from
interfering with the land in dispute.
 2. A further order restraining the respondent from taking any other steps or actions that would
interfere with the Plaintiff's possession and ownership of the land pending the hearing and
determination of the main suit.
3. Cost of this application is provided for.

The grounds for this application are provided in the affidavit of Maimuna Ssemboga, the Company
Secretary of the applicant, which shall be read and relied upon at the hearing.

GIVEN UNDER my hand and seal of this Honorable Court this …… day of July, 2025

……fdvnsytuh…………
REGISTRAR

EXTRACTED BY;
M/S BATTE & Co. ADVOCATES,
SHREE GANESH PLAZA, LEVEL 2
SUITE 10 PLOT 24/26, ENTEBBE ROAD,
P.O.BOX 37067, KAMPALA.
 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DIVISON)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. ………..OF 2025
(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO.42. OF 2024)

FESTO KYOHEIRWE …………………………………………. APPLICANT

VERSUS
JOHN MAGOBA ……………………………………. RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CHAMBER SUMMONS

I, FESTO KYOHEIRWE of M/S Batte & CO. Advocates, P. O. Box 3762, Kampala, hereby do
solemnly swear and state as follows:
1. That I am an adult Ugandan of sound mind, legal owner of the land in dispute and plaintiff
in the main suit and swear this affidavit in that capacity.
2. That I lodged a civil suit vide HCCS No …24…. Of 2024 for a declaration that I am the
rightful owner of the suit property, general damages for trespass and a permanent
Injunction against the Respondent in this Honorable court. (a copy of the plaint and
summons to file a defense is here attached and marked as annexure A and B
respectively)
3. That on the 19th /09/2007 I purchased 2.5 acres of land to be subdivided from Kyadondo
plot 539 land at Manyangwa from Paul Francis Sebwana at a cost of Ug Shs 55,000,000
(fifty-five million (a copy of the sale agreement herein attached and marked as
Annexture “B”.
4. That I have owned and cultivated the land for several years.
5. That on the 10th January, 2025, I discovered that a one John had started pouring
construction materials onto my land, with the intent of constructing a structure thereon. (A
picture of the site is here to attached and marked as Annexture C)

6. That the respondent has no legal right whatsoever in the suit property.
7. That the main suit will be rendered nugatory if this application is not allowed.
8. That the Applicant stands to suffer irreparable damage if this application is denied.
9. That it is in best interest of justice that this application be granted.
10. That I depone this affidavit in support of application to be granted a Temporary injunction.
11. That all that I have stated herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

SWORN at Kampala on this 15th day of January, 2025

By the Said
Festo Kyoheirwe ……………hgf……….
DEPONENT

BEFORE ME

…………………………dfghlj.kjhgv……………………..
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

DRAWN AND FILED BY:

M/S BATTE& Co ADVOCATES,
SHREE GANESH PLAZA, LEVEL 2
SUITE 10 PLOT 24/26,
ENTEBBE ROAD, P.O.BOX 37067, KAMPALA.

Issue six
What submissions would I rely on in court to support the application for temporary
injunction?

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DIVISON)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. ………...OF 2025
(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 42 OF 2025)

FESTO KYOHEIRWE …………………………………………. APPLICANT

VERSUS
JOHN MOGOBA ……………………………………. RESPONDENT

SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

The applicant has filed the application against the respondent, seeking a remedy of a temporary
injunction. However, pending the hearing and determination of the suit, the applicant seeks an
interim order of injunction to preserve the status quo and prevent further harm and potential loss
to the Applicant’s rights over the land.
INTRODUCTION
This is an application for a temporary injunction sought by the applicant, Mr. Festo Kyoheirwe,
to restrain the Defendant, Mr. John Magoba, from further interfering with the applicant’s land
located in Manyangwa, which the Defendant has begun to occupy unlawfully by commencing
construction works on the Plaintiff's land, including the pouring of construction materials and
excavation of a foundation.

The applicant states under paragraph 7 of his affidavit that he is the legal owner of the land having
purchased 2.5 acres of land located at Kyadondo Block 178 Plot 539 at a price of Ug. Shs.
55,000,000/= (Fifty-Five Million) (A copy of the sale agreement is hereby attached and
marked annexture “A”). After the purchase of the land Paul Francis Sebwana processed a sub-
division of the land comprised in Kyadondo Block 178 Plot 1466 transferred it into the applicant’s
names. (A copy of the Title is attached and marked “B”). the applicant has been in possession of
the land ever since then and this fact hasn’t been disputed by the respondents in their affidavit
in reply.

Section 101 of the Evidence Act, Cap.8 that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to
any legal right or liability defendant on the existence of any facts he/she must be able to prove the
existence of those facts. Section 103 of the Evidence Act, that the burden of proof lies on the
person who wishes court to believe on the existence of any fact. As well articulated in civil suits
the standard of proof is based on the balance of probabilities.

The issue that has to be determined before court is briefly stated as follows.
1. Whether Festo Kyoheirwe could be granted a remedy for a temporary injunction in order
to protect his interests in the said land?

Your Lordship, the law governing the grant of Temporary injunctions has been articulated in a
number of civil cases. The gist of the grant of the temporary injunction is the preservation of the
suit property pending disposal of the main suit. Therefore courts have set down conditions that
need to be fulfilled before the grant of the temporary injunction and these are: that there must be a
prima facie case with a possibility of success, that the applicant will suffer irreparable injury which
cannot otherwise be compensated for by damages, if court is in doubt then, it will decide the
question on the basis of balance of convenience these are well stated in the case of Kiyimba
Kaggwa v Hajji Abdul Nasser Katende [1985] H.C.B.

Your Lordship this honorable court has powers to grant a temporary injunction under Order 41 r
1(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 which provides that, where in any suit it is provided
by affidavit or otherwise that any property is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by
any party to the suit the court has power to grant an order of a temporary injunction in order to
restrain such acts until the disposal of the suit. Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282,
this court is given inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to ensure that the ends
of justice are met or to prevent abuse of the process of court. Section 64 (e) of the Civil Procedure
Act, Cap.282, that in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the court has the
power to make such interlocutory orders as may appear to court to be just and convenient.

In the case of Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdul Nasser Katende, HCB Justice Odoki had the
opportunity of deciding that the “the grant of a temporary injunction is an exercise of judicial
discretion and the purpose of granting it is to preserve matters in status quo until the question to
be observed in the suit can be finally disposed of.”

In this case the applicant has clearly showed in her affidavit in support paragraph 6 that she took
possession of the land immediately after he had purchased it. That in early November, 2024, the
respondent brought workers on the land that started tilling part of the land. In fact, by the applicant
filling this application to ask this honorable court to prevent the respondent from accessing the
land that has fenced off the said land with barbed wire. The respondent has continued once in a
while to trespass on the said land.
Your Lordship the ongoing construction on the land by the respondent are illegal and they
are intended to alter the status quo to create a false impression in the main suit that the
applicant has always been in occupation and utilization of the disputed land whereas not.
The respondent wants to defeat the interests of justice.

On the basis of the prima facie case with a probability of success the application will succeed since
the applicant acquired the said land in 2007 way before he acquired the same and also there is a
serious issue of ownership of land to be tried.

On the question of suffering irreparable injury not sufficiently compensated for by damages. The
applicant has adduced evidence of existence of crops on the said land. There’s no specific denial
of these activities but instead the respondent mainly asserts his proprietary rights. Therefore, in the
event that the applicant is adjudged the owner of the said land it could be impossible to replace the
damage occasioned to the crops. This is well articulated by Justice Bashaija. K. Andrew in the
case of Makerere University v Omumbejja Namusisi Farida Misc. Application No.657 of
2013, there irreparable injury is based on the aspect that it couldn’t be possible to replace the
damage occasioned through the grant of damages by court. So, this means that the applicant should
be granted the remedy of a temporary injunction, based on the aspect of non-compensation of the
irreparable injury occasioned by the construction on the said land.

Your Lordship, the balance of convenience is in favor of the applicants since he stayed on the land
since 2007 long before the respondent, so the applicant will suffer more damage if the application
is not granted. In the case of Digital Solutions Limited v MTN Uganda Limited HCMA NO.
546 of 2007 it was held that a person who is likely to be inconvenienced if the status quo is altered
ought to be granted this order.

Your Lordship, however in accordance to the facts at hand that the said Francis Sebwana stated at
police that he had previously intended to sell the said land to the defendant but he paid a deposit
and failed to pay which prompted him to look for other buyers and so this is how my client came
to purchase the land. However, there’s presence of sale agreement dated 19th/09/2008 signed by
both the vendor and purchaser. (A copy of the sale agreement is hereby attached and marked
as “Annexture C”) the presence of a sale agreement shows that the applicant lawfully purchased
the land from the vendor and therefore is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice.

Therefore, basing on the powers conferred by this court and also basing on the evidence analyzed
above, the laws and the inherent powers of this court, it is our submission and prayer that the status
quo of the land which is in dispute as highlighted above be maintained by halting the respondent’s
ongoing constructions thereon.
It’s also in our submissions that all the conditions for the grant of the temporary injunction have
been satisfied by the applicant. Thus, we pray that it is with immediate effect that he is stopped
from altering the suit property through construction and also pray for the costs of this application.

We do so pray.

Dated this 10th day of January, 2025.

……………HHHHHH………………..
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

DRAWN AND FILED BY;

M/S Batte& Co Advocates,
Shree Ganesh Plaza, Level 2
Suite 10 Plot 24/26, Entebbe Road,
P.O. Box 37067,
Kampala
TASK B

BRIFE FACTS
My client Magoba informs me that apart from the disputed land, the plaintiff has no known
property or income in Uganda and he has processed a visa to go for Kyeyo in the United Kingdom.
Rumors circulating in the village that he was planning to sell the land in question so that he leaves
the country.

ISSUES
1. What is the most available remedy available to the defendant in the circumstances?
2. What is the Forum Procedure and Documents envisaged to attain the remedy in issue 1.

LAW APPLICABLE
1. The Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282
2. The Civil Procedure Rules S1 71-1
3. Case law

RESSOLUTION OF ISSUES

1. What is the most appropriate remedy available to the defendant in the circumstances?

Order 26 Rule1 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides for security for costs. The court may if it
deems fit order a plaintiff in any suit to give security for the payment of all costs incurred by any
defendant.
Rule 2 of the same order stipulates that if the security is not furnished within the time fixed, the
court shall make an order dismissing the suit unless the plaintiff of plaintiffs are permitted to
withdraw from the suit.
Rule 3 of Order 26 provides that Applications under rule 1 of this Order shall be by summons in
chambers.

Security for costs is basically money paid into court out of which an unsuccessful plaintiff will be
able to satisfy any eventual award of costs made against him.

In G.M Combined (U) ltd Vs A.K Detergents (U) ltd SCCS NO.23/1994. Court held that the
power to grant an order for security for costs is purely a discretionary one. It must always be
exercised in very special circumstances taking into account the nature, purpose and circumstances
of the case.

The rationale for the remedy is to protect the defendant against the risk of being unable to enforce
any costs they may obtain. In Galukande Vs Kibirige & 2 Ors Misc App. No.261 of 2018, the
High Court held that this is an interim remedy intended to alleviate the concern of potential
difficulties in seeking recovery of costs against the claimant. That the claimant is then required to
pay money into court, or to provide some other form of security, as a precondition to being able to
continue with the claim.

The Burden of proof in such an application was set out in Laiji Gangi Vs Nathoo Vassanjee
(1990) EA 315, where it was held that the burden of proof lies on the applicant for an order of
security for security for costs to show cause why that relief should be granted.

In order for an application to obtain an order for security for costs, they must show
1. That they have grounds for security for costs to exist.
2. That it is just and equitable to make the order.

In Namboro vs Kaala (1975) HCB 315, Ssekande Ag.J held that the main consideration to be
taken into account in an application for security for costs are;
i. Whether the defendant is put to undue expenses of defending a frivolous and vexatious
suit.
ii. That he or she has a good defense to the suit and is likely to succeed.
iii. That mere poverty of the plaintiff is not by itself a ground for ordering for security for
costs for if it were so, poor litigants would be deterred from enforcing their legitimate
rights through the legal process.

PROCEDURE
The mode of institution of such an application under Order 26 Rule 3 is by way of Chamber
summons accompanied by an affidavit in support.

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DIVISION)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. …………………...OF 2025
(Arising out of Civil Suit No. 42 of 2024)

JOHN MAGOBA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT
VERSUS
FESTO KYOHEIRWE::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

CHAMBER SUMMONS
 (Under Order 26 Rules 1, 2, and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, SI 71-1)

LET ALL PARTIES CONCERNED attend the learned Judge in chambers on the……. day
of……………………20.... at……...O’clock in the fore/afternoon or as soon as counsel for the
applicant can be heard for Orders that:

1. The Respondent/Plaintiff (Civil Suit No. 42 of 2024) be ordered to pay security for costs
in respect of Civil Suit No. 42 of 2024
2. Costs for this application be provided for.

Given under my and seal of this Honorable Court this ………. day of …………...2025

…………………………………….
REGISTRAR

Extracted By:
M/s Firm F6 & Co. Advocates,
1st Floor, Room 2,
Law Development Center, Lira,
P.O Box 06, Lira,
Uganda
 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DIVISION)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. …………………...OF 2025
(Arising out of Civil Suit No. 42 of 2024)

JOHN MAGOBA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT
VERSUS
FESTO KYOHEIRWE::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIN IN SUPPORT OF CHAMBER SUMMONS

I, JOHN MAGOBA of C/o M/s F6 & Co. Advocates, 1st Floor, Room 2, Law Development
Centre, P. O. Box 06, Lira- Uganda, do hereby solemnly make oath and state as follows:

1. That I am a male adult Ugandan of sound mind, the defendant in Civil Suit No. 42 of 2024,
and the applicant herein. (A copy of my national Identity Card is hereto attached and
marked annexure A)
2. That I was sued by the respondent, the Plaintiff in Civil suit No. 42 of 2024 in an attempt
that the respondent/Plaintiff for orders be declared the rightful owner of the suit Land that
is 2.5 acres of land to be subdivided from Land Comprised in Kyadondo Block 178 plot
539 Land at Manyangwa among other orders. (A copy of the Plaint is hereto attached
and Marked B)
3. That I ably through my lawyers M/s Lukwago & Co. advocates filled a defense which is
founded on the fact that I am a rightful owner of the suit property (A copy of my Written
Statement of defense is hereto attached and Marked C)
4. That the allegations in in Civil suit No. 42 of 2024 are frivolous, vexatious, misconceived
and bad in law and bad in law as backed by my written statement of defense attached.
5. That I have information that the Plaintiff/ Respondent except for the address of his lawyers.
he has no known Physical address in Uganda and that he is planning to relocate to another
country.
6. That we also have reliable information that the plaintiff has no known source of income in
Uganda.
7. That I have been advised by my Lawyers M/s F6 & Co. Advocates, which information I
believe to be true, that given the that the plaintiff/Respondent has no known source of
income in Uganda, no permanent physical address in Uganda, its highly probable that if
the Plaintiff loses in Civil suit no.42 of 2024, he may not be in position to pay the costs
thereof.
8. That I swear this affidavit in support of an application for payment of security of costs by
the plaintiff to the court.
 9. That whatever I have stated herein above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge
except for paragraph 7 whose source I have verity disclosed.

SWORN at Lira this ……13th day of …..January……………2025.

By the said;
JOHN MAGOBA ……………MAGOBA…………
DEPONENT

BEFORE ME

…..…………Commissioner……….………
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS.

Drawn & filed by;

M/s Firm F6 & Co. Advocates,
1st Floor, Room 2,
Law Development Center, Lira,
P.O Box 06, Lira,
Uganda
 Legal Opinion on Application for Security for Costs

To: John Magoba

From: Counsel for the Defendant
Date: January 11, 2025

Subject: Legal Opinion on Application for Security for Costs

Background:
John Magoba, the Defendant, has filed a written statement of defense in a land dispute involving
Festo Kyoheirwe, the Plaintiff, who reportedly lacks significant property or income in Uganda
and is preparing to relocate to the United Kingdom. This scenario raises significant concerns
regarding the enforceability of potential cost orders if you prevail in the lawsuit.
Legal Framework:
• The Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282
• The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71
• Relevant Case Law
Issues:
1. Reasons to Support the Application for Security for Costs:
Legal Analysis:
1. Discretionary Power of the Court:
• Order 26 of the Civil Procedure Rules empowers the court to order a plaintiff to
provide security for costs, a power that must be exercised with caution based on the
specifics of each case. The case of G.M Combined (U) Ltd vs A.K Detergents (U)
LTD (SCCS No.23/1994) underscores that such orders are made under special
circumstances, which must be clearly demonstrated.
2. Plaintiff's Lack of Assets within Jurisdiction:
• The absence of substantial assets by Festo Kyoheirwe within Uganda supports the
application for security for costs. As per John Murray (Publishers) Ltd & 10 Ors v
GW Sekindi & Anor, the lack of local assets can justify such an order to mitigate the
risk of uncollectible costs for the defendant.
3. Potential for Execution of Cost Orders:
 • With the Plaintiff preparing to leave Uganda, the execution of any cost orders would be
challenging or infeasible, thus justifying security for costs under special circumstances.
4. Non-Oppressive Use of Security for Costs:
• It's vital to frame the application in a manner that shows it's not meant to oppress or
hinder the Plaintiff's claim but to protect the Defendant's interests. The affidavit should
clearly outline concerns regarding cost recovery without being punitive.
5. Main Considerations for Application:
• The principles from Anthony Namboro and Fabian Waburoko vs Henry Kaala (Civil
Suit No. 553 of 1975) provide additional guidance:
o Whether the Defendant is unduly burdened by defending a frivolous or vexatious
suit.
o The strength and credibility of the Defendant's defense.
o The likelihood of success of the defense.
• These considerations must be met before focusing on the Plaintiff's financial status.
Notably, mere poverty or lack of funds should not alone justify an order for security for
costs, as this could deter legitimate claims by less financially endowed litigants.
6. Procedural Requirements:
• The application must be made via Chamber Summons, supported by an affidavit as per
Order 26 Rule 3, which should:
o Confirm filing of defense within the legal time frame.
o Argue the credibility and potential success of the defense.
o Detail the Plaintiff's lack of local assets.
Conclusion: Given the legal framework and precedents in Uganda, there are compelling reasons
to pursue security for costs in this case. The application should be meticulously prepared to show
that it is necessary to ensure any costs awarded in the defendant’s favor can be enforced, without
deterring legitimate legal actions due to the Plaintiff's financial situation.
Recommendation:
• Proceed with filing the chamber summons for security for costs, ensuring compliance
with all procedural requirements, including a robust affidavit detailing the reasons for the
application.
Yours Faithfully,

..........Stella.................
Counsel for the Defendant
TASK C (i)

FACTS

Despite the fact that the Plaintiff, Festo Kyoheirwe secured an order for a temporary
injunction restraining the respondent, John Magoba from trespassing on the land comprised in
Kyadondo Block 178 Plot 1466 at Manyangwa, and wasting or alienating it, the Defendant
has continued to till the land, cut down some trees and he is still bringing materials on the
land.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent, John Magoba can be held liable for contempt of court?

LAW APPLICABLE

Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, as amended: Article 28(12)

Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282: Sec. 98

Judicature Act, Cap. 16: Sec. 37

Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1: O.52

Case Law

RESOLUTION

The court may initiate proceedings for contempt, potentially leading to fines or imprisonment for
John Magoba. From these proceedings, the court may make the following orders:

● Enforcement by Police: The court could order the police or other law enforcement
agencies to intervene to physically stop further violations, ensuring the injunction is
respected.
● Monetary Penalties: Imposition of financial penalties or damages to compensate the
Plaintiff for losses or legal costs incurred due to non-compliance.
● Additional Injunctive Relief: The court might issue further, more stringent orders or
clarifications to the existing injunction to address specific ongoing violations.
● Sequestration of Assets: In extreme cases, the court might consider sequestration (the
act of taking possession of property by judicial authority), of the respondent's assets to
enforce compliance or to secure compensation.
● Cost Orders: Awarding costs against the respondent for the additional legal action
necessitated by his non-compliance.
 Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) defines contempt of court as: “Conduct that defies the
authority or dignity of a court. Because such conduct interferes with the administration of justice,
it is punishable usually by fine or imprisonment.”

The term "contempt of court" was further defined by the Supreme Court of Uganda in the case
of Re Ivan Samuel Ssebadduka, Contempt proceedings arising from Presidential Election
Petition No. 1 of 2O2O, which quoted with approval the case of Johnson vs. Grant SC 1923
SC 789 at 79O in which Lord President (Clyde) inter alia, explained it to mean: "...... An offence
consists in interfering with the administration of the law; in impeding and perverting the course
of justice. It is not the dignity of court which is offended - it is the fundamental supremacy of the
law which is challenged."

In the case of Morris vs. Crown Office [1970] l ALL ER 7079 at 1OB7, Salmon LJ stated that,
"The sole purpose of proceedings for contempt is to give our courts the power effectively to
protect the rights of the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be
obstructed or prevented..."

The case of Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Anor v Edward Musisi Misc.App No.158/ 2010.
highlights the principle that, the whole purpose of litigation as a process of judicial
administration is lost if orders issued by Court through its 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.

The laws Applicable in an application for contempt of court are: Sec. 98 of the Civil Procedure
Act, grants court inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of
the process of the court. Sec. 37 of the Judicature Act; in reference to the instant case, the High
Court can grant remedies for contempt of court, ensuring all related disputes are resolved
comprehensively and efficiently, either unconditionally or with just terms. Order 52 rules 1&2
of the Civil Procedure rules S1-71-1; provide for the mode of application.

The case of Stanbic Bank (u) Ltd v The Commissioner General URA (HCMA No. 42/2010
Arising from HCCS No. 497/2010 (Commercial Court), gives the Conditions necessary in order
to prove contempt of court, they include;

· Existence of a lawful order.

· The potential contemnor’s knowledge of the order.

· The potential contemnor’s failure to comply or willful disobedience of the order.

Halsbury's Laws of England, Contempt of Court (Volume 9 (1) Reissue) 1 Classifies

contempt into two. It states as follows: “Contempt of Court may be classified as either;
 (1) Criminal Contempt, consisting of words or acts which impede or interfere with the
administration of justice, or which create a substantial risk that the course of justice will be
seriously impeded or prejudiced;

(2) Contempt in procedure, otherwise known as civil contempt, consisting of disobedience to

the judgment, orders or other process of the Court and involving a private injury."

It is thus clear that Civil contempt, occurs outside the court's close realm. This involves
disregarding court orders and judgments. This, therefore, means that civil contempt must be
brought to the court's notice the conduct alleged to constitute the contempt of court.

The instant case, is one that involves conduct that occurred outside the realm of court. The
allegation against the respondent is that, he disobeyed the orders of the High Court in Misc Appl.
No.112 of 2024, when he continued tiling the land, cut down trees and brought materials on the
land. This, therefore, falls under the classification of civil contempt.

It is an established principle of law, as shown in the case of Megha Industries Ltd v Conform
HCMC No. 21/2014. That disobedience of court orders ought not to be taken lightly and the
contemnor should be punished... “a party who knows of an order… cannot be permitted to
disobey it …. As long as the order exists, it must not be disobeyed.”

It is important to note that Uganda has no elaborate law governing handling of Contempt of
court, an equivalent of the Contempt of Court Act of UK.” In this respect, courts have resorted to
Sec.14 (2) (b) (i) of the Judicature Act, in which the High Court is enjoined to exercise its
jurisdiction in conformity with the Common law and doctrines of Equity. Further, Sec. 14 (2) (c)
of the same Act; court is obliged to exercise its discretion in conformity with the principle of
justice, equity and good conscience.

Civil contempt proceedings are between the Court and the alleged contemnor, not the litigant
who reports the contempt. The litigant is not a party but merely assists by providing information.
This position was explained in the persuasive decision of Mubiru, J in Florence Dawaru vs.
Angumale Albino & Anor HC MA No. 0096 of 2016 in which he stated as follows:

"However, for contempt that is not committed in the face of court, this kind of contempt is sui
generls. It is usually initiated by a litigant who by motion brings to the attention of court conduct
believed to be in contempt of court. All contempt proceedings are matters between the court and
the alleged contemnor. Any person who moves the machinery of the court for contempt only
brings to the notice of the court certain facts constituting contempt of court. After furnishing
such information he or she may still assist the court, but it must always be borne in mind that in
a contempt proceeding there are only two parties, namely, the court and contemnor. He further
stated that: There is a clear line of distinction between proceedings for civil contempt is
regarded as a form of execution and enforcement of the order alleged to have been violated to
the detriment of the party. It is in the nature and form an appeal for execution and enforcement
of the court's order for the benefit of the party. The right of a private party to move the court for
civil contempt is therefore regarded as remedial." This decision though persuasive was adopted
by the Supreme Court in the case of Kizito-v-Nsubuga-and-Ors-SC-Civil-Application-No-25-
of-2021-2022.

In Hon. Sitenda Sebalu vs. Secretary General of the East African Community No.8 of 2012 It
was stated that the position of the law is, that the standard of proof in contempt proceedings must
be higher than proof of probabilities and almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt.

In the instant case, it is clear that there exists a lawful order. A court order vide Misc. cause No.
112 of 2024 was granted on the 13th day of December 2024.The order was extracted by the
Applicant and served on the respondents. There is no dispute of the existence of the said order.

Secondly, Potential contemnor’s knowledge of the order. The respondents being parties and at all
time present when court order was issued vide Misc. cause No. 112 of 2024 from which the said
order arose. This makes the respondents fully aware of the said orders made therein.

Thirdly, the potential contemnor, by continuing to till the land, cutting down trees and bring
materials thereon has not complied, therefore, disobedience of the order.

Therefore, the client in the instant facts should bring initiate proceedings for contempt, relying
on Sec. 98 of the Civil procedure Act, Sec. 37 of the Judicature Act and O. 52 of the civil
procedure rules, as a means of appeal for execution and enforcement of the court's order for his
benefit. Moving the court for civil contempt is remedial in nature, so the prayers sought and
orders given shall fit the current circumstances and thus deter further breach.
TASK C (ii)

COURT ORDER

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(LAND DIVISION)

ARISING OUT OF MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2025)

(ARISING OUT OF CIVIL SUIT NO. 42 OF 2024)

FESTO KYOHEIRWE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

JOHN MAGOBA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

ORDER FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

Upon the application for a temporary injunction made by Mr. Festo Kyoheirwe, the Plaintiff,
dated the 8th day of January 2024, and having considered:

1. The affidavit evidence furnished by the Plaintiff detailing the actions of the Respondent,
John Magoba, in commencing construction and tiling on the land comprised in Kyadondo
Block 178 Plot 1466 at Manyangwa, which land is currently in dispute in this suit.
2. The legal provisions under:

Section 37 of the Judicature Act, Cap. 16, which empowers the High Court to grant remedies to
avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Section 42(1) and Section 42(3)(a) of the Judicature Act, Cap. 16, which provide for the granting
of injunctions to prevent acts that may cause harm or trespass.

Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282, which preserves the inherent powers of the
court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice.
Order 41 rule 1(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71-1, which allows for the
granting of temporary injunctions where property in dispute is at risk of being wasted or
damaged.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. An injunction be issued against the Respondent, John Magoba, restraining him, his
servants, agents, or any persons acting on his behalf or under his instructions from:

Further entering upon, or in any manner dealing with, the land comprised in Kyadondo Block
178 Plot 1466 at Manyangwa.

Continuing or commencing any construction, tiling, or any form of development or alteration on

the said land until the final determination of this suit or further order of this court.

2. This injunction shall remain in force until the conclusion of the suit or until
further order of this court.

3. The Respondent is to file a written undertaking to comply with this order within
7 days from the date of service of this order.

4. Service of this order shall be effected upon the Respondent by the Plaintiff
through any lawful means, including personal service or substituted service as deemed
necessary by this court.

5. Any breach of this order by the Respondent may result in contempt of court
proceedings.

GIVEN under my Hand and Seal of this Court this 8th day of January, 2025

[Seal]

...........Kunda.............

REGISTRAR

EXTRACTED BY;
M/s Batte & Co. Advocates,
P.O. BOX 3762,
Kampala.
NOTICE OF MOTION

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DIVISION)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2025
(ARISNG FROM MISCILLANEUOS APPLICATION N0.1 OF 2025)
(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO.42 OF 2024)

FESTO KYOHEIRWE ------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT

VERSUS
JOHN MAGOBA -----------------------------------------------------------------------RESPONDENT

NOTICE OF MOTION

(Under Article 28 of the 1995 Constitution, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Section
37 of Judicature Act and Order41 Rule2, Order 52 Rule 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure
Rules)

TAKE NOTICE that this honorable court will be moved on the 13th day of January 2025 at 9
O’clock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter that counsel for the applicant can be heard on
orders that;
1. The respondent be held in contempt of court.
2. The respondents be permanently ordered to restrain from carrying out any activities on
the suit land
3. The police be ordered to intervene, to physically stop the respondent from carrying out
any activity on the land comprised in Kyadondo Block 178 Plot 1466, in Manyangwa.
4. The respondents be committed to prison for a period of one year as a sanction for
contempt of court since he disobeyed the court decree of 8th January 2025.
5. The respondent pays the applicant UGX 100,000,000/= (Uganda shillings One Hundred
Million only) as compensation for their actions of contempt of court.
6. The respondent be found in contempt of court and pay to this court UGX 80,000,000/=
(Uganda shillings Eighty Million Only) as a fine for their actions of contempt of court.
7. The respondents bear the costs of this application.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that this application is supported by grounds laid out in the
affidavit of FESTO KYOHEIRWE, the applicant herein which shall be read and relied on at
the hearing of this application but briefly the grounds are;
 1. That I sued the respondent in civil suit No.42 of 2024 and sought for orders that i am
declared lawful owner of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 178 Plot 1466, at
Manyangwa.
2. That the respondent claimed ownership of the said land and started tilling part of the land.
3. That I made an application for a temporary injunction in Misc. App. No.1 of 2025.
4. That I obtained a court order in the presence of the respondent, restraining him from
carrying out any activity on the suit land.
5. That the respondent, continued to till on the land, cut down trees and is still bringing
materials on the suit land.

Dated at Kampala this 10th day of January 2025

VeroNm
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

Given under my hand and seal this 10th day of January 2025

{Seal}
Fredrick
REGISTRAR

EXTRACTED BY;
M/s Batte & Co. Advocates,
P.O. BOX 3762,
Kampala.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DIVISION)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2025
(ARISNG FROM MISCELLANEUOS APPLICATION N0.1 OF 2025)
(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO.42 OF 2024)

FESTO KYOHEIRWE ------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT

VERSUS
JOHN MAGOBA -----------------------------------------------------------------------RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION

I FESTO KYOHEIRWE of M/S Batte & CO. Advocates, P. O. Box 3762, Kampala, hereby do
solemnly swear and state as follows:

1. That I am an adult male Ugandan of sound mind and swear this affidavit in that capacity.
2. That on 19/09/2007 I purchased 2.5 acres of land to be subdivided from land at
Kyadondo Block 178 Plot 539 Manyangwa from Paul Francis Sebwana at a cost of Ug
Shs 55,000,000 (fifty-five million (a copy of the sale agreement herein attached and
marked as Annexture “A”.
3. That in 2024, I discovered a one John had started pouring construction materials onto my
land, with the intent of constructing a structure thereon. (a picture of the site is here to
attached and marked as annexture B)
4. That I lodged a suit Vide HCCS No. 42 Of 2025 in this Honorable court seeking for a
declaration that I am the rightful owner of the land Kyadondo block 178 plot 1466,
general damages for trespass and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
trespassing on the suit land. (a copy of the plaint and summons to file a defense is here
attached and marked as annexture C and D respectively)
5. That I made an application arising out of the above civil suit vide Miscellaneous
Application No.1 of 2025 for an order of temporary injunction. (Chamber summons and
affidavit in support of the chamber summons are hereto attached and marked annexure E
and F respectively)
6. That the application for temporary injunction was granted by this honorable court in the
presence of both the respondent and his counsel. It was restraining the respondent form
carrying our any activities on the land until the main suit is determined. (Copy of the
order is here to attached and marked annexure G)
 a. That even after the order was given the respondent continued to till, cut down
some trees and still brings the materials on the land yet he had the ability to
comply with the order since he was not the one in possession of the land. (A
photo current status of the land showing the area in which trees were cut, the
ongoing tilling and materials brought on the land is here to attached and marked
annexure H).
7. That the main suit will be rendered nugatory if this Application is not allowed.
8. That the Applicant stands to suffer damage if this application is denied
9. That it is in best interest of justice that this Application be granted.
10. That whatever I stated is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

SWORN at Lira this ___10th_________day of ____January__________________2025

By the said;

FESTO KYOHEIRWE. ….festo………..

DEPONENT

BEFORE ME

_____________VeroNm____________

COMMISSIONER FOR OATH

DRAWN & FILED BY;

M/s Batte & Co. Advocates,
P.O. BOX 3762,
Kampala.
 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(LAND DIVISION)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2025
(ARISNG FROM MISCILLANEUOS APPLICATION N0.1 OF 2025)
(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO.42 OF 2024)

FESTO KYOHEIRWE ------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT

VERSUS
JOHN MAGOBA ------------------------------------------------------------------------RESPONDENT

APPLICANT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON CONTEMPT OF COURT

Your Lordship, the applicant filed an application for contempt of court order against the
respondent. The court had ordered the respondent to restrain from tilling the suit land of a
Kyadondo Block 178 plot 1466. This was the result of the applicant’s application for a temporary
injunction in Miscellaneous Application No.1 of 2025. The application arose from a civil suit
No.42 of 2024 where the applicant (plaintiff) is seeking for a declaration that he is the rightful
owner of the land Kyadondo block 178 plot 1466, general damages for trespass and a permanent
injunction restraining the defendant from tresspassing on the suit land.

INTRODUCTION

This is an application for contempt of court sought by the applicant, Festo Kyoheiwre, to compel
the respondent to respect the restraining order according to paragraph 6 of the applicant’s
affidavit. According to paragraph 5 of the applicant’s affidavit this order was an outcome of the
Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2025 which was seeking for temporary injunction against the
respondent in regards to land located in Kyadondo Block 178 Plot 1466.

According to Section 101 of the Evidence Act, which stipulates that the onus is always on the
plaintiff and if he makes out a case which entitles him to relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to
prove those circumstances if any which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same therefore the
applicant has the onus to prove the existence of disobedience of a court order.

The standard of proof according Hon. Sitenda Sebalu vs. Secretary General of the East African
Community No.8 of 2012 It was stated that the position of the law that the standard of proof in
contempt proceedings must be higher than proof of probabilities and almost but not exactly
beyond reasonable doubt.

The issue that has to be determined before this honorable court which states as follows;
 1. Whether the respondent can be held liable for contempt of court.

Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition which defines contempt of court to mean conduct that
defies the authority or dignity of court. In Barbra Nambi v Raymond Lwanga H.C.M.A
No.213 of 2017, where Justice Flavia Senga Anglin, defined contempt of Court to; “Consists of
conduct which interferes with the administration of justice or impedes or perverts the course of
justice.” She also added that; “Civil contempt consist of a failure to comply with a judgment or
order of a Court or breach of an undertaking of Court”.

Your Lordship, this honorable court is enjoined with powers to grant an application for contempt
of court according; Article 28(12) of The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda’ 1995.

Furthermore Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act: Grants the court inherent powers to prevent
abuse of process, empowering Court with wide powers to make necessary orders to achieve the
ends of justice and prevent abuse of court process. Order 52, Rule 1 CPR: Provides for
applications for contempt of court.

Key to note Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol 9, 4tn Edition draws a distinction between
criminal and civil contempt. According to the case of Jack Erasmus Nsangiranabo v. Col
Kaka Bagyenda and Anor, Miss App No 671 of 2019 Court held that there is a clear
distinction between proceedings for contempt initiated by the Court on motion and those initiated
as a Civil Contempt by the motion of a private litigant. A proceeding of Civil contempt is
regarded as a form of execution and enforcement of the order alleged to have been isolated to the
detriment of a private party of a private party.

A civil proceeding for contempt is a form of an appeal for execution or enforcement of a Courts’
order for the benefit of a party. The right of a private party to move Court for Civil Contempt is
therefore regarded as remedial and it is governed by the limits of the civil jurisdiction of Court.
In the case of Stanbic Bank (Ul Ltd and Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd vs. The Commissioner
General Uganda Revenue Authority HC M.A No.42/ 2O1O argued that for court to determine
whether there was contempt, there must be existence of a lawful order, the potential contemnor's
knowledge of the order and the potential contemnor's failure to comply (disobedience of the
court order).

According to paragraph 6 of the applicant’s affidavit in support of notice of motion the court
granted the temporary injunction sought by the applicant and this is supported by a copy of the
temporary injunction order annexed G.

Paragraph 6(a) of the applicant ‘s affidavit contends that the respondent continued to till the land,
cut down trees and bringing materials onto the land. This can be proven by a copy of photos
taken on the land showing that there were trees cut and materials brought on to the land.
The case of Sitenda Sebalu vs. The Secretary General of the East African Community, Ref.
No. B of 2072 (East African Court of Justice) set out the pre-conditions that must be satisfied
before a court can hold a respondent in contempt. The court stated as follows: To prove
contempt, the complainant must prove the four elements of contempt, namely:

(i) The existence of a lawful order

(ii) knowledge of the order

(iii) The contemnor's ability to comply

(iv) The potential contemnor's failure to comply.

According to paragraph 6 of the Applicant’s affidavit an order was given by this honorable court
restraining the respondent from carrying out any activities on the suit land hence he had
knowledge of the order.

In paragraph 6(a) of the Applicant's affidavit he contends that the respondent continued to till,
cut down trees and bring materials onto the land even after the order was passed which is proved
by a photo current status of the land showing the area in which trees were cut, the ongoing tilling
and materials brought on the land which is attached to the affidavit and marked annexure H. He
further contends in the same paragraph that the respondent had the ability to comply with the
order since he was not the one in possession of the suit land but he failed to do so.

According to the Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol. 9(1) paragraph 492, civil contempt “Is
punishable by way of committal or by way of sequestration. Civil Contempt may also be
punished by a fine, or an injunction may be granted against the contemnor. In conclusion we
pray that this honorable court finds the respondent liable for contempt of court. The applicant
therefore for the orders stated in the Notice of Motion which are;

1. The respondent be held in contempt of court.

2. The respondents comply with the orders of this court in Misc. App No. 112 of 2024 in
totality.
3. The respondents purge themselves of contempt by complying with the orders of the Court
in totality.
4. The police are ordered to intervene, to physically stop the respondent from carrying out
any activity on the land comprised in Kyadondo Block 178 Plot 1466, in Manyangwa.
5. The respondents be committed to prison for a period of one year as a sanction for
contempt of court;
6. The respondent pays the applicant UGX 100,000,000/= (Uganda shillings One Hundred
Million only) as compensation for their actions of contempt of court.
We do so pray

Dated at Kampala this 10 day of January 2025

Kunda
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

DRAWN & FILED BY;

M/s Batte & Co. Advocates,
P.O. BOX 3762,
Kampala
 TASK D
BRIEF FACTS.
Following the accident caused by Bwatyo James who was driving Kabuswa Godfrey's truck,
several persons were injured, Johnson Beyanga, Lydia Nakatudde, and Makati Godfrey. All the
three filed separate suits in Mpigi Chief Magistrate Court seeking for both special and general
damages against Karissa Godfrey for vicarious liability as a result of negligence of Bwatyo James.
As counsel I have been instructed to file defenses and counterclaim against the plaintiffs, but it
will be costly to attend to each of them when called for hearing. My client needs advice on what
course of action I can take to protect the interests of my client.

ISSUES.
1. Whether Kabiswa Godfrey can consolidate Johnson Beyanga, Lydia Nakatudde and Mbati
Geofrey's suits?
2. What is the procedure, forum and documents?

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES.
Issue 1.
Whether Kabiswa Godfrey can consolidate Johnson Beyanga, Lydia Nakatudde and Mbati
Godfrey's suits?
Consolidation of suits is when a court orders multiple lawsuits to be combined into one proceeding.
Consolidation of suits is provided for under Order 11 rule (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules S.I
71-1 provides as follows:
Where two or more suits are pending in the same court in which the same or similar questions of
law or fact are involved, the court may, either upon the application of one of the parties or of its
own motion, at its discretion, and upon such terms as may seem fit-

1. order a consolidation of those suits; and

2. direct that further proceedings in any of the suits be stayed until further order.
In Stumberg and another v Potgeiter (1970) EA 323, court held that consolidation of suits
should be ordered where there are common questions of law or fact, consolidation of suits should
not be ordered where there are deep differences between the claims and defence in each action.

In the instant facts, all the plaintiffs brought a suit for vicarious liability against Kabiswa Godfrey
which is the same question of law, their injuries arose of the same accident(facts), and they all
filed the suit in Mpigi Chief Magistrate Court. This means that the option of Consolidating the
suits would be the best option to represent the interests of the defendant.

Further in Teopista Kyebitama v Damiyano Batuma (1976) HCB 276, it was held that it is well
established that where two or three suits are filed involving the same parties and arising from the
same cause of action, they should either be consolidated for purpose of determining liability or
only one of them, first in point of time heard first.
In conclusion, as counsel I would consolidate the suit in order to save costs and represent best the
interests of the plaintiff.

Issue 2.
What is the procedure, forum and documents?

Procedure.
Order 11 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that applications under this order shall be
by summons in chambers. This means that as counsel for Kabiswa Geofry, I will proceed by
summons in chambers.

Forum.
The forum of this application shall be the Chief Magistrate Court of Mpigi.

Documents.
The documents shall be a chamber summons supported by an affidavit as required under Order
11 Rule 2.

I will also attach a summary of evidence since a chamber summons is a pleading as under Section
2(p) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 6 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules which
provides that every pleading shall be accompanied by a brief summary of evidence, a list of
witnesses, a list of documents and a list of authorities to relied on.
 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT OF MPIGI AT MPIGI
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2025
(Arising out of Civil Suit No……. OF 2024)
KABWISA GODFREY…………………………………………… APPLICANTS
VERSUS
JOHNSON BEYANGA
LYDIA NAKATUDDE
MBATI GOEFFREY…………………………….………………. RESPONDENTS

CHAMBER SUMMONS

(Under Section 96 & 98 CPA, Order 11 r 2 Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1)

LET ALL PARTIES CONCERNED attend court on the 17thday of January, 2024 at 3 O’Clock
in the fore/afternoon or soon thereafter as counsel for the applicant can be heard on an
application for orders that;

(i) That this honorable court consolidates the several suits filed against the applicant in
this honorable court.
(ii) That the costs of the application be provided for.

The grounds for this application are contained in the applicant’s affidavit which shall be relied
and read at the hearing.

Given under my hand and seal this 13th day of January 2025

…………………RGGG…………………….

REGISTRAR

Summons were taken out by;

M/S Firm F6 Advocates,

2nd Floor

Law Development Center, Lira.

 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT OF MPIGI AT MPIGI
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2025
(Arising out of Civil Suit No……. OF 2024)

KABWISA GODFREY…………………………………………… APPLICANTS

VERSUS
JOHNSON BEYANGA
LYDIA NAKATUDDE
MBATI GOEFFREY…………………………….………………. RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF CHAMBER SUMMONS

I, KABWISA GEOFFREY OF C/O M/S F6 & Co. Advocates 1st Floor, Room 2 Law
Development Centre, Lira-Uganda, do hereby solemnly make oath and state as follows;

1. That I am a male adult Ugandan of sound mind.

2. That I am the applicant herein above and swear this affidavit in such capacity.
3. That following the accident that occurred on the 20th October, 2023 involving Isuzu Truck
Reg. No. UAT 578U belonging to me that was being driven by Bwatyo James, several
persons were injured to wit Johnson Beyanga a boda boda rider, Lydia Nakatudde a
passenger on the boda boda and Mbati Geoffrey a charcoal dealer at Mpigi police stage.
(Copies of the accident report are hereto attached and marked annexture “A”)
4. That all the three plaintiff have filed separate suits in the Chief Magistrates Court seeking
for both special and general damages against me for vicarious liability as a result of the
negligence of Bwatyo James. (Copies of the plaints of the various suits are hereto
attached and marked annexture “B”, “C” and “D” respectively)
5. That I have instructed my lawyer to file defenses denying liability and make a counter
claim for contributory negligence on the plaintiffs. To which she has advised me about the
likely costs in appearing to defend each of them when called for hearing.
6. That to avoid the multiplicity of suits and the costs involved, we have resorted to invoke
the powers of court, to consolidate the suits pending in the same court involving similar
questions of fact or law against me.
7. That I swear this affidavit in support of an application for consolidation of the suits pending
against me in this honorable court.
8. That whatever I have stated herein above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

SWORN at Mpigi this 11th day of January, 2024

By the said

Kabiswa Geoffrey ………GFFF………………

DEPONENT
 BEFORE ME

……………………SSNN…………………………

COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

Drawn and filed by

M/S Firm F6 & Co. Advocates
2nd Floor, Room 1
P.O Box 06
Law Development Centre, Lira.
 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATES COURT OF MPIGI AT MPIGI
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2025
(Arising out of Civil Suit No……. OF 2024)

KABWISA GODFREY…………………………………………… APPLICANTS

VERSUS
JOHNSON BEYANGA
LYDIA NAKATUDDE
MBATI GOEFFREY…………………………….………………. RESPONDENTS

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE.
The applicant shall adduce evidence to show that the suits of the respondents arose from the
same facts and are based on similar questions of law. The plaintiff shall also adduce evidence to
show that the respondents’ suits are in the same court and can be consolidated.

LIST OF AUTHORITIES.
1. The Civil Procedure Act, Cap.
2. The Civil Procedure Rules, SI 74-1.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS.
1. The plaint.
2. Accident report.

LIST OF WITNESSES.
1. The applicant.
2. Any other with leave of court.

………GHGHGJJJ……..
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

Drawn and Filed By;

F.6 and Co. Advocates,
P.O Box, 06,
Lira, Uganda.