Only the court that issued an order has the inherent jurisdiction to enforce compliance and address contempt, High Court at Kampala Reaffirms.

Waboga David
Oct 7
4 min read

Facts

The Applicant, Kafuma Dominic, brought an application under Article 28(12) of the Constitution, Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 52 Rules 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking to have the Respondent, Nalwanga Lwanga Irene, held in contempt of court.

The background was that the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Entebbe had issued a temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 70 of 2023, restraining the Respondent from further construction on the disputed land pending determination of Civil Appeal No. 04 of 2023. Despite service of this order, the Respondent allegedly continued construction by digging a pit latrine, which the Applicant argued amounted to contempt.

The Respondent opposed the application, arguing that she had already subdivided and transferred the land to her children and other individuals as early as 2017, who now occupy and develop their respective plots independently. She maintained that her activities (such as cultivating and maintaining graveyards) were not in breach of any court order.

Issues for Determination

Whether the Respondent is in contempt of the court order in Misc. Application No. 70 of 2023.
What remedies are available to the Applicant.
(Raised preliminarily by the Respondent) — Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a contempt application arising from an order of the Chief Magistrate’s Court.

Legal Representation

For the Applicant, M/s Nshemereirwe, Arigye & Co. Advocates (Counsel Nshemerirwe Peruth & Fred Muwanguzi).
For the Respondent, M/s Mpagi Sunday & Co. Advocates (Counsel Mpagi Sunday).

Submissions

Respondent’s Counsel raised three preliminary objections

That the High Court Registrar lacked jurisdiction to handle contempt not committed in the face of the court or within the Registrar’s limited powers under Order 50 CPR and Practice Direction No. 1 of 2002.

That the application was filed in the wrong court, since contempt of a Chief Magistrate’s order should be enforced by that same court.

That the application was legally barred, as it purported to arise from Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2024 in which no order existed to be disobeyed.

He relied on Florence Dawaru v Angulate Abino & Anor, HCMA No. 96 of 2016; Ocen Kassim v Soroti District Land Board & 2 Others, HCMA No. 77 of 2020.

Applicant’s Counsel rebutted that

The High Court retained supervisory and inherent jurisdiction to enforce contempt proceedings for lower court orders, especially when the subordinate court’s file had been transmitted to the High Court on appeal.

He cited Bisaso Nathan v Orwin Tumuhirwe, HC Misc. Appeal No. 8 of 2020 [2023]; Jingo Livingstone Mukasa v Hope Rwaguma, CACA No. 190 of 2015 [2021] UGCA 51; Geoffrey Odongo & Others v Francis Atoke, CACA No. 127 of 2015 [2017] UGCA 54; Ramadhan Salim v Evans M. Maabi t/a Murphy Auctioneers & Another, CA Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2015 (Kenya).

Counsel argued that under Article 139 of the Constitution and Section 14(1) of the Judicature Act, the High Court’s unlimited jurisdiction and supervisory powers permit it to enforce such orders in the interest of justice.

Court’s Findings

The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is statutory, citing Umar Asuman v Olila Moses, HCCR No. 1 of 2006, where Musota J held that a suit filed without jurisdiction is a nullity.

While acknowledging the High Court’s unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139 of the Constitution and supervisory powers under Section 220(3) of the Magistrates Courts Act, the Court held that the power to punish for contempt belongs to the court that issued the order allegedly disobeyed.

Relying on Florence Dawaru v Angumale Abino & Anor (supra) and Kibeedi Hussein v Hotel Triangle Ltd & Anor, HCMA No. 128 of 2023, the Court reiterated that the jurisdiction to enforce obedience to its own orders lies with the issuing court.

The Court found that since the alleged contempt related to an order issued by the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Entebbe (MA No. 70 of 2023), only that court had the jurisdiction to entertain and punish for contempt of its order.

The mere fact that the case file had been transmitted to the High Court on appeal did not vest the High Court with jurisdiction to hear the contempt application.

Holding

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a contempt application arising from a subordinate court’s order.
The first and second preliminary objections were upheld.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the application with costs awarded to the Respondent.

Key Takeaways

Contempt of a subordinate court’s order must be tried by that same court, not by the High Court, even where the case file has been transmitted on appeal.
While the High Court has broad jurisdiction under Article 139 and Section 14 of the Judicature Act, these do not override specific statutory limits regarding contempt.
The High Court’s supervisory powers under Section 220(3) MCA are administrative and corrective, but they do not extend to direct contempt enforcement for orders of subordinate courts.
Only the court that issued an order has the inherent jurisdiction to enforce compliance and address contempt, reinforcing the principle that courts must protect their authority to ensure effective administration of justice.
Litigants should file contempt proceedings in the same court that issued the order alleged to have been violated to avoid dismissal for want of jurisdiction.