Wakilii

Kizito v Nsubuga & 6 Others (Civil Application 25 of 2021; Civil Application 26 of 2021)

Supreme Court · [2022] UGSC 6 · 2022 Application Granted — Contempt Found ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to commit the respondents for civil contempt for failing to comply with earlier Supreme Court orders
Decision
Respondents found in contempt of court and ordered to comply with the Court's earlier orders in totality within 30 days, failing which a fine of UGX 100,000,000 and imprisonment would be imposed.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) 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 Supreme Court held that the respondents were in civil contempt of its earlier orders in SCCA No. 8 of 2018 (as amended), which had reinstated the applicant onto the suit land as a tenant in common and awarded damages. The Court reaffirmed that the only parties to civil contempt proceedings are the court and the alleged contemnor, and so declined the respondents' counter-allegation against the applicant. Applying the established elements — a clear valid order, knowledge, ability to comply, and intentional failure — it found the respondents' near two-year non-compliance wilful and lacking good faith. As the order could still be realised, it ordered compliance within 30 days, failing which a UGX 100,000,000 fine and imprisonment would follow.

Facts

In SCCA No. 8 of 2018, decided on 19 September 2019, the Supreme Court ordered that the applicant be reinstated onto the certificate of title of land at Muyenga (Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 5091) as a tenant in common with the first respondent, awarded her general damages, and granted costs. On 7 October 2020 the damages were reduced to UGX 70,000,000 with interest at 6% per annum. By mid-2021 the orders remained unenforced: the applicant had not been reinstated on the title, the respondents had not surrendered the duplicate certificate of title to enable reinstatement, and only UGX 500,000 of the damages had been deposited at the High Court under an instalment arrangement that neither the applicant nor the court had sanctioned. The first respondent, David Kizito Kanonya, died in June 2021, prompting a dispute over burying him on the suit land. The applicant brought contempt proceedings against the respondents, alleging a deliberate scheme to frustrate and render nugatory the Court's decree.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents committed contempt of court by failing to comply with the orders of the Supreme Court in SCCA No. 8 of 2018, as amended in SCC Application No. 19 of 2019.
  2. Whether the applicant who moves the court for civil contempt is a party against whom a counter-allegation of contempt may be made in the same proceedings.
  3. What remedies and penalties are available where civil contempt is established.

Orders

  • The respondents are found to have acted in contempt of court by failing, refusing and/or neglecting to comply with the orders of the Court.
  • The respondents shall comply with the orders of the Court in SCCA No. 8 of 2018, as amended in SCC Application No. 19 of 2019, in totality within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
  • The respondents shall purge themselves of contempt by complying with the orders of the Court in totality.
  • In the event that the respondents fail to comply with the Court order in totality, a fine of UGX 100,000,000 and a term of imprisonment shall be imposed on the respondents.

Key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Distinction between Civil and Criminal Contempt
Criminal contempt consists of words or acts that impede or interfere with the administration of justice and involve a public injury, whereas civil contempt consists of disobedience to the judgment, orders or process of a court and involves a private injury; the proper remedy for civil contempt is coercive rather than punitive.
Contempt of Court — Parties to Civil Contempt Proceedings
In civil contempt not committed in the face of the court, the only parties to the proceedings are the court and the alleged contemnor; a litigant who moves the court merely furnishes information about the alleged contempt and does not thereby become a party, and so cannot be made the subject of a counter-allegation of contempt within those proceedings.
Contempt of Court — Elements of Civil Contempt
To establish civil contempt the applicant must prove the existence of a valid order that states clearly and unequivocally what must and must not be done, the alleged contemnor's actual knowledge of the order, the ability to comply, and an intentional failure to do the act the order compels or to refrain from the act it prohibits.
Contempt of Court — Standard of Proof
Civil contempt must be proved to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt as to the alleged contemnor's deliberate conduct in disobeying the order; the applicant need not prove an intention to bring the court into disrepute, and where the breach is unintentional or accidental the court may exercise its discretion to impose no penalty.
Contempt of Court — Judicial Discretion and Last Resort
Even where all the elements of civil contempt are satisfied, the court retains a discretion to decline a finding of contempt where the alleged contemnor demonstrates good faith and reasonable steps towards compliance; contempt is a remedy of last resort to be exercised with great restraint and cannot be reduced to a mere means of enforcing judgments.
Contempt of Court — Purpose and Assessment of Penalties
The primary goal of civil contempt sanctions is to secure compliance with the court's order rather than to punish the contemnor; in fixing a penalty the court may have regard to deterrence and denunciation, proportionality, the gravity of the breach, the contemnor's past record and character, the need to protect the public, and may impose conditions which, if satisfied, allow the sanction to be avoided.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.42(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.42(2)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.43(1)
  • Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions r.50
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 28(12)

Cases cited (13)

  • Betty Kizito v David Kizito Kanonya and Others (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2018)
  • David Kizito Kanonya and Others v Betty Kizito (Civil Application No. 19 of 2019)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Re Ivan Samuel Ssebadduka, Contempt proceedings arising from Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2020
  • Johnson vs. Grant SC 1923 SC 789 at 790
  • Morris v Crown Office [1970] 1 All ER 1079
  • Poje v Attorney General for British Columbia [1953] 1 SCR 516
  • Florence Dawaru v Angumale Albino and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 0096 of 2016)
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)
  • Carey v Laiken 2015 SCC 17
  • LC Chuck and Cremier [1896] ER 885
  • (British Columbia) Health Employers Association vs. Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association, 2004 31 B.C.L.R. 4th 124 (S.C.)
  • Law Society of British Columbia v Hanson 2004 BCSC 825
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.