Scribd
Upload
0 views

submissions on contempt

The document is a legal submission from Festo Kyoheirwe, the applicant, against John Magoba, the respondent, regarding a dispute over a 2.5-acre land in Uganda. The applicant claims ownership of the land after purchasing it and alleges that the respondent has violated a temporary injunction by continuing construction activities on the property. The submission seeks to address the respondent's contempt of court and requests remedies for the ongoing trespass.

Uploaded by

Aciro Nelly
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 views

submissions on contempt

The document is a legal submission from Festo Kyoheirwe, the applicant, against John Magoba, the respondent, regarding a dispute over a 2.5-acre land in Uganda. The applicant claims ownership of the land after purchasing it and alleges that the respondent has violated a temporary injunction by continuing construction activities on the property. The submission seeks to address the respondent's contempt of court and requests remedies for the ongoing trespass.

Uploaded by

Aciro Nelly
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

THE REPUBLIC OF REPUBLIC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

(LAND DIVISION)

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO..... OF 2025

(ARISING FROM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO .....OF 2025)

(ALL ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO 42 OF 2024)

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

VERSUS

JOHN MAGOBA................................ RESPONDENT

APPLICANT'S SUBMISSION

BRIEF BACKGROUND

The applicant is in possession of the suit land measuring 2.5 acres having
purchased it from Mr Paul Francis Sebwana at a cost of ug Shs
55,000,000/= on the 19/09/2007 to be suddivided from kyadondo block
178 plot 539 land at Manyangwa. Before the purchase, the plaintiff made
a search and found that the land was free from any encumbrances. After
the purchase, the said paul Francis sebwana processed a subdivision and
the title comprised in kyadondo Block 178 plot 1466 transferred into the
plaintiffs names. However 13th january 2025 the Respondent pouring
construction materials on the same, brought several casual workers on
the site who started digging a foundation. The applicant sued the
Respondent vide civil suit no 42 of 2024 for the declaration that the
applicant is the rightful owner of the suit property, General damages for
trespass, a permanent injunction restraining the Respondent for further
trespass on the suit property , costs of the suit. The applicant further filed
an application vide no 13 of 2025 for grant of temporary injunction which
the applicant was granted in 2024 in the presence of Respondent and his
counsel.

In total disregard of the court order to maintain the status quo till the
disposal of the main suit the Respondent, has continued to till the land,
cut down some tress and he is still bringing materials on the land.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Respondent’s actions are in contempt of the temporary


injunction issued by this honourable Court
2. What remedies are available to the part

RESOLUTION
Issue 1

Your honour this application is brought under section 98 of The Civil


Procedure Act Cap 282,section 14(1) and 37 of the Judicature Act Cap 16,
and order 41 rules (2) and (3)

The grounds of this application are that:

1. That the applicant obtained an order of temporary injunction against


the Respondent restraining him from continuing with construction
work on the suit land or carrying out any activity on the suit land
2. That the order was granted to maintain the status quo pending
determination of the substantive suit.
3. That the Respondent is aware of the order which was granted in the
presence of hin and his counsel and a copy given to him.
4. That the order has not yet been vacated, reversed or otherwise
quashed by higher court of law.
5. That the Respondent in total disregard of the court order went
ahead and continued to till the land, cut down some trees and he is
still bringing materials on the land.
6. That it is in the interest of justice that thus application be granted if
courts are to guard their orders.

You might also like