Wakilii

Ssempebwa & Ors v Attorney General (Civil Application 5 of 2019)

Supreme Court · [2019] UGSC 70 · 2019 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion for a declaration of contempt of court arising out of orders made in a presidential election petition
Decision
Application for a declaration of contempt against the Attorney General refused; the Court made fresh time-bound orders requiring the Attorney General to report on progress of the electoral reform legislation within three and six months.

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

The Court held that to establish civil contempt an applicant must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, an order, service or notice, non-compliance, and that the non-compliance was wilful and mala fide; once the first three are shown, the respondent bears an evidential burden on wilfulness. The Attorney General had reported to Court by letter to the Registrar (a proper mode, no modality having been specified) and had followed up the electoral-reform recommendations with the Executive and Parliament, producing amendments and draft bills despite delay. The Court found the delay bona fide and not contemptuous, declined to hold the Attorney General in contempt, but made fresh time-bound orders to ensure compliance.

Facts

Following the 2016 general election, Amama Mbabazi unsuccessfully petitioned the Supreme Court to nullify the presidential result. 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 back within two years. The applicants, public-interest litigants, brought this application alleging the Attorney General had neither implemented the reforms nor reported back, and was in contempt. The Attorney General responded that he had reported by letter to the Registrar within the two years and had followed up the recommendations, with some amendments enacted through Constitution (Amendment) Act No.1 of 2018, rules signed by the Chief Justice, and several draft bills prepared, though enactment had taken longer than two years owing to extensive consultations.

Issues

  1. Whether the Supreme Court had made orders 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 the disobedience was wilful or mala fide.
  5. What remedies are available to the applicants.

Orders

  • The Attorney General must, in consultation with other organs of State (the Executive and the Legislature), ensure that priority is given to the 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 this 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; the proceeding is coercive or remedial in nature, aimed at compelling compliance and vindicating the court's authority, and is distinct from criminal contempt which is punitive and obstructs the administration of justice.
Contempt of Court — Elements — Standard and Burden of Proof
To establish civil contempt the applicant must prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a court order, its service or notice to the alleged contemnor, and non-compliance; once these are proved the respondent bears an evidential burden to show that the non-compliance was not wilful and mala fide.
Contempt of Court — Wilfulness and Mala Fides — Bona Fide Non-Compliance
Disobedience of a civil order constitutes contempt only where the breach was committed deliberately and mala fide; unreasonable but bona fide non-compliance, including honest delay supported by a genuine explanation, does not amount to contempt.
Contempt of Court — Mode of Compliance — Reporting to Court
Where a court order does not specify the manner of reporting, communication to the court through the Registrar by letter is a reasonable and proper mode of compliance, court users normally communicating with the court through its Registrar.
Judicial Power — Duty of State Organs to Assist the Courts — Article 128
Court orders must be respected, implemented and given effect; under Article 128 no person or authority may interfere with the courts, and all organs and agencies of State are obliged to render such assistance as is required to ensure the effectiveness of the courts.
Contempt of Court — Public Interest — Order as Issue Between Court and Contemnor
Contempt of court is not merely a matter inter partes for the benefit of the successful litigant; it engages a public interest in the effectiveness and legitimacy of the judicial system, the court acting as guardian of that public interest.

Legislation cited (23)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 128(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 128(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28(12)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 104(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 104(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 104(6)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 104(7)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 67(3)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 119
  • Civil Procedure Act s.98
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Rule 2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Rule 42(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court) Rules Rule 43
  • Constitution (Amendment) Act No.1 of 2018 s.4
  • Constitution (Amendment) Act No.1 of 2018 s.6
  • Presidential Elections Act s.59(2)
  • Presidential Elections Act s.59(3)
  • Presidential Elections Act s.24(1)
  • Presidential Elections Act s.64
  • Presidential Elections (Election Petitions) Rules Rule 3
  • Presidential Elections (Election Petitions) Rules Rule 5
  • Presidential Elections (Election Petitions) Rules Rule 20(6)

Cases cited (8)

  • Re Bramblevale Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 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 (767/2013) [2014] ZASCA 209
  • Federation of Governing Bodies of South African Schools (Gauteng) v MEC for Education, Gauteng 2002 (1) SA 660
  • (511/03) [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.