This is no way to treat a lawyer serving a court order even if you think the order is not authentic. Actually, it’s no way to treat a fellow human being. IT IS WRONG simply WRONG and I hope folks involved are held to account. I think the legal fraternity should act coz this manner can’t be tolerated.
They have broken all the basic principles of decency. Anyway apart from walking naked on the streets, there is nothing the regime can do now that can surprise anyone. At that time he was an officer of court because he was having a court document and police was mandated to give him security so that he could serve it on the Minister and the ED.
The police are aware of this coz in the nine months they spend in Masindi they are taught basic legal concepts among which is to use reasonable force and to me that force was too excessive since even the victim of the violence had only come to serve them with a court order. Ugandans don’t deserve this kind of treatment! Am deeply hurt by this torture perpetuated by policemen who are expected to be the custodians of the law!
The lawyer had to do that to make sure Frank Tumwebaze never denies that he was served with the injunction. There are three basic methods are used for service of process:
a) Actual, or personal, service,
b) Substituted service, and
c) Service by publication.
Although each method is legally acceptable, PERSONAL SERVICE (which was used in the instant case, as shown in the photo below) is preferred because it is the most effective way of providing notice and it is difficult for the defendant to attack its legality. Personal service means IN-HAND DELIVERY of the papers to the proper person. The arguments that followed strengthen the lawyer’s case.
Where an order of court is not stayed, either by a successful application or by operation of a specific law, that order is executable and /or complied with by whomever it is directed to and/ or by whomever it has to be complied with.
In the Lukwago scenario, the court order was granted about 45 Mins before the vote at KCCA was made. Suffice to say, minutes before the vote was made, notice / knowledge of the said order was brought to the attention of the presiding chair Frank Tumwebaze; but he trashed it as ‘unauthentic.
Efforts by Hon. Segona to get in in the chambers turned futile as police blocked him from entering, but it was given to a one lukwago supporter who was in the premises and there after passed to Allan Sewanyana one of the LCs who latter brought it to the attention of Frank T. who in effect trashed it as ‘unauthentic’
Needless to state that an interim order is made in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient so to do. This is for the protection of the court when it is overwhelmed with matters for disposal. Therefore such orders are given under compelling circumstances. ONCE THEY ARE ISSUED THEY HAVE TO BE OBEYED. They are lawful court orders, DISOBEDIENCE OF WHICH WOULD RENDER THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS A NULLITY
See the cases of:
a) Burundi Tobacco Co. S.A.R.L & Leaf Tobacco & commodity (U) Ltd v BAT (U) Ltd Civil Appeal Reference No. 22 of 2010,
b) Lweza Clays Ltd & Anor vs Tropical Bank Ltd & Anor, Civil Application No. 129 of 2009.
c) Muwema & Mugerwa Advocates & Solicitor vs. Shell (u) Ltd & 10 others CA CA NO. 18 OF 2011
The issue of whether the order came in late or not or whether there was no service of the court order is not a legal one. What is pertinent for court’s consideration is whether the opposite party was aware of the issuance of that order. That the opposite part had knowledge that an order was issued is itself sufficient. It goes without say that the court order was issued about 45 minutes before the KCCA vote was made & the information about the order went viral.
Adherence to court order is not determined by who serves the order. That it was issued by court is itself sufficient, Period! The legality of wrongful service is a matter that can be contended in the courts of law, if any
The difference is Tumwebaze does not care what the law says, he simply cares what his boss says, Ugandans have made M7 to be above the law, let’s not act like we are surprised about the results.
Do you remember what happened to kasibante, when the EC refused to accept the court orders for interim relief? Don’t be surprised when the Lukwago matters ends up in his favour just as Kasibante did. Lukwago, will undoubtedly will this case on technicality.
There is need to emphasized that the principle of law is that the whole essence of litigation as a process of judicial administration is lost if orders issued by court through the set judicial process, in the normal functioning of courts, are not complied with in full by those targeted and/or called upon to give due compliance/effect. A State organ, or agency or person legally and duty bound to give due compliance must do so. Court orders cannot be issued in vain.” Per HON. JUSTICE MR. BASHAIJA K. ANDREW in the case of MURIISA NICHOLAS Vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL & Others MISC CAUSE NO. 035 OF 2012.
The general principle regarding respect for court orders was stated in Chuck Vs Cremer ( I Coop Temp Cott 342) cited in the judgment of Rooner L. J. in Hadiknson Vs Hadkinson that:
“A party who knows of an order whether null or void, regular or irregular cannot be permitted to disobey it …. It would be most dangerous to hold the suitors or their solicitors, could themselves judge whether an order was null or void – whether it was regular or irregular.
That they should come to the court and not take it upon themselves to determine such a question. That the course of the part knowing an order, which was null or irregular, and might be affected by it was plaint. He should apply to the court that it might be discharged. AS LONG AS IT (the Court order) EXISTED, IT MUST NOT BE DISOBEYED.”