THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(EXECUTION AND BAILIFFS DIVISION)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 148 OF 2017
(ARISING FROM EMA NO. 2579 OF 2016)
(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO. 170 OF 2016)
SSEMPEBWA DENNIS ……………..……………..…………… APPLICANT
- UGANDA CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES (IN LIQUIDATION)
- AMOS BAKEINE ……………..…………..………….. RESPONDENT
BEFORE LADY JUSTICE FLAVIA SENOGA ANGLIN
This application was made under SS.52 and 92 CPA and 0.1 rr 10(2), (4) and 13, and 0.52 r 1 C.P.R.
The application sought orders of this court:-
- Validating the addition of the Second Respondent to the application.
- First Respondent’s agent or occupant of the suit property comprised in Kyadondo Block 261, Plot 18, at Lukuli in the names of Amos Bakeine be detained in prison for contempt of court orders and or obstructing/resisting execution of court warrant issued on 16.01.17 and executed on 19.01.17.
- The Judgment Creditor be put back in possession of the suit property.
- Costs of the application be provided for.
The grounds of the application are set out in the motion and I don’t deem it necessary to repeat them here.
The application is supported by the affidavits of Ssempebwa Dennis and Bonnie Rwamukaaga a Court Bailiff.
There is an affidavit in reply by the Second Respondent Amos Bakeine and an affidavit in rejoinder of the Applicant.
The application was heard on 07.03.17 after several adjournments together with MA 155/2017 between the Second Respondent (as Applicant) and the Applicant now (as Respondent).
The Ruling in application No. 155/2017 was delivered by court on 31.07.17.
It is apparent from that ruling that the issues of contempt of court, which are the subject of the present application, were raised in that application.
This court declined to go into the issues of contempt of court, ruling that the issues will be more effectively and properly pronounced upon in Civil Suit No. 511/17 filed by the Second Respondent / (then Applicant before the Land Division).
Court further directed that the status quo be maintained pending the determination of the said civil suit.
For those reasons, I reiterate my earlier decision and decline to go into the merits of the issues of contempt of court raised in this application.They should be dealt with in the civil suit pending before the Land Division, where each of the parties will be given an opportunity to be heard.That way, “all matters in controversy between the parties may be completely and finally determined and all multiplicities of legal proceedings concerning any of these matters avoided”. – S. 33 Judicature Act.
Costs of the application will abide the outcome of the civil suit before the Land Division.
Flavia Senoga Anglin