Wakilii

Owor Christestom Bonny v Electoral Commission (Election Application No. 2 of 2024)

Court of Appeal · [2025] UGCA 272 · 2025 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court seeking a warrant of arrest and a fine against the Electoral Commission for failing to comply with a Court of Appeal order to conduct fresh LC III elections.
Decision
Application for contempt dismissed; the Electoral Commission found not in contempt of the court's order.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that the Electoral Commission was not in contempt of its order to conduct fresh LC III Chairperson elections for Sere Sub-County. Civil contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, including the wilful and mala fide nature of the non-compliance. The Commission had acknowledged the order, sought supplementary funding from the Ministry of Finance and Parliament, and demonstrated good-faith efforts to comply; its failure was occasioned by genuine financial constraints rather than deliberate disobedience. As the applicant had not proved wilful non-compliance, the contempt issue was answered in the negative and the application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts

The applicant had successfully appealed against the 2021 election of the LC III Chairperson for Sere Sub-County, Tororo District. By judgment dated 19 May 2022 the Court of Appeal set aside the election, declared the position vacant, and ordered the Electoral Commission to conduct fresh elections. The applicant's lawyers forwarded the decree to the Chief Administrative Officer and other officials and repeatedly reminded the Commission to comply, but no fresh election was held over a period of about three years. The applicant brought contempt proceedings, noting that the Commission had in the meantime conducted various parliamentary and district by-elections. The Commission acknowledged the order but stated it could not comply because of lack of funding; it had requested supplementary funds from the Ministry of Finance and Parliament to conduct numerous outstanding by-elections countrywide, evidenced by correspondence and its Ministerial Policy Statement, and maintained that the delay was due to financial constraints beyond its control rather than deliberate disobedience.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent is in contempt of the court orders directing it to conduct fresh elections.
  2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the prayers sought.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements to be proved
To establish civil contempt the applicant must prove the existence of a lawful order, the contemnor's knowledge of it, the contemnor's ability to comply, and the contemnor's failure to comply.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Standard and burden of proof
Civil contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, particularly the wilful or mala fide nature of the non-compliance; once the first three elements are established, the alleged contemnor bears the evidential burden of showing that the non-compliance was not wilful and mala fide.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Good-faith defence and impossibility of compliance
A court may decline to find contempt where the alleged contemnor demonstrates good faith and reasonable steps towards compliance; non-compliance occasioned by genuine financial constraints, rather than deliberate disobedience, does not amount to contempt.
Electoral Law — Electoral Commission — Constitutional duty to conduct elections
The Electoral Commission bears a constitutional duty under Article 61 of the Constitution to organise and conduct elections, including fresh elections ordered by a court, but its compliance with such an order may legitimately be constrained where the required funding is not made available.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.43
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions S.I. 13-10 r.44
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 61(1)(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 61(1)(b)
  • Local Governments Act Cap 343 s.171(4)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005

Cases cited (10)

  • Sitenda Sebalu vs The Secretary General of the East African Community Ref No. 8 of 2021
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd vs. The Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority, HCM.A No. 42/2010
  • Betty Kizito v Dickson Nsubuga and Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 25 & 26 of 2021)
  • Poje vs. Attorney General for British Columbia
  • Carey v Laiken, 2015 SCC 17
  • Florence Dawaru vs. Angumale Albino & Anor, HC MA No. 0096 of 2016
  • Ambard v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 522
  • Afribonk (Nig) Plc v Yelwa (2017) 72 NWLR p.286
  • United States v Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258
  • Hicks v Feiock, 485 U.S. 624
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.