Wakilii

Prof. Fredrick E. Ssempebwa and Others v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 05 of 2019)

Supreme Court · [2019] UGSC 104 · 2019 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for a declaration that the Attorney General is in contempt of court orders made in Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016
Decision
Application for a declaration of contempt failed; the Court found the Attorney General not in contempt but made further timed orders for implementation of the recommendations

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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

On an application to hold the Attorney General in civil contempt for failing to follow up and report on electoral-reform recommendations made in the 2016 presidential election petition, the Court held that an applicant must prove the order, notice, non-compliance, and wilfulness/mala fides beyond reasonable doubt, after which the respondent bears an evidential burden on wilfulness. The Court found the order and notice conceded, accepted that reporting by letter to the Registrar was a proper report, and held the Attorney General had followed up the recommendations though enactment was delayed. The delay was not wilful or mala fide. No contempt was established; the application failed, but the Court made fresh timed orders for implementation.

Facts

Following the 2016 general election, Amama Mbabazi petitioned the Supreme Court to nullify the results in Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016. In its August 2016 judgment the Court made ten recommendations for electoral reform and ordered the Attorney General to follow up their implementation with Parliament and the Executive, and to report to the Court within two years on the measures taken. The applicants, acting in the public interest, brought this application alleging the Attorney General had failed to implement the orders and had not properly reported back, and sought declarations of official and personal contempt. The Attorney General responded that he had followed up the recommendations with relevant State organs, that several amendments had been enacted (including the Constitution (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2018) and rules signed, that draft bills had been prepared, and that he had reported to the Court by letter to the Registrar within the two-year period. He attributed delays to the consultative legislative process.

Issues

  1. Whether orders were made by the Supreme Court in Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016.
  2. Whether those orders were brought to the attention of the respondent.
  3. Whether the respondent disobeyed the orders of the Court.
  4. If so, whether that disobedience was wilful and mala fide.
  5. What remedies are available to the applicants.

Orders

  • The Attorney General must, in consultation with the Executive and the Legislature, ensure priority is given to implementation of all the Court's recommendations.
  • The proposed legislation for implementation of the Court's recommendations should be laid before Parliament within one month from the date of this ruling.
  • The Attorney General shall report to the Court on the progress of the proposed legislation within three months from the date of this ruling.
  • The Attorney General shall in any case make a final report on the progress of the proposed legislation within six months from the date of this ruling.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Distinction from Criminal Contempt
Civil contempt is the failure to obey a court order issued for another party's benefit; it is coercive or remedial in nature and is distinct from criminal contempt, which is punitive and aimed at conduct obstructing justice or attacking the integrity of the court.
Contempt of Court — Elements — Standard and Burden of Proof
To establish civil contempt the applicant must prove the existence of the order, its service or notice to the alleged contemnor, and non-compliance, and that the non-compliance was wilful and mala fide, all beyond reasonable doubt.
Contempt of Court — Evidential Burden — Wilfulness and Mala Fides
Once the applicant proves the order, notice and non-compliance, the respondent bears an evidential burden to show that the non-compliance was not wilful and mala fide; unreasonable but bona fide non-compliance does not constitute contempt.
Contempt of Court — Public Interest — Effectiveness of the Judicial System
Contempt of court is not merely an issue between the parties but concerns the effectiveness and legitimacy of the judicial system; there is a public interest element in every contempt proceeding, and State organs are obliged under the Constitution to accord the courts such assistance as ensures their effectiveness.
Court Orders — Mode of Reporting — Communication Through the Registrar
Where a court order requiring a party to report back does not prescribe the mode of reporting, reporting by letter to the court Registrar is not unreasonable conduct, as communication with the court is normally conducted through the office of the Registrar.

Legislation cited (20)

  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.128(3)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.128(2)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.126(1)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.28(12)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.104(2)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.104(3)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.104(6)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.104(7)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.67(3)
  • Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.119
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.42(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules r.43
  • Presidential Elections Act s.59(2)
  • Presidential Elections Act s.59(3)
  • Presidential Elections Act s.24(1)
  • Presidential Elections Act s.64
  • Constitution (Amendment) Act No.1 of 2018 s.4
  • Constitution (Amendment) Act No.1 of 2018 s.6

Cases cited (8)

  • Re Bramblevale Ltd [1969] 3 All E.R. 1062
  • Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (No.2) [2015] ZACC 10
  • Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd [2006] SCA 54 (RSA)
  • Lourens v Premier of the Free State Province and Another [2017] ZASCA 60
  • Meadow Glen Home Owners Association v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality [2014] ZASCA 209
  • Federation of Governing Bodies of South African Schools (Gauteng) v MEC for Education, Gauteng 2002 (1) SA 660
  • [2003] ZAECHC 19
  • Amama Mbabazi v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and Others (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016)
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.