Wakilii

[2026] UGHC 153

High Court Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from alleged disobedience of an interim order issued in September 2016
Decision
Application dismissed on the merits

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 High Court ruled that it has jurisdiction to determine contempt of its own orders regardless of whether the underlying suit is within its jurisdiction. However, the contempt application failed because the interim order allegedly disobeyed had been vacated by consent on 27th September 2018, before the alleged contemptuous conduct occurred in February 2024. Without a subsisting court order, no contempt can be established.

Outcome

Application dismissed on the merits

Facts

The applicants, acting for and on behalf of 614 others, applied for a declaration that the respondents were in contempt of an interim court order issued on 22nd September 2016 under Miscellaneous Application No. 210 of 2016. They alleged that the respondents engaged in contemptuous conduct commencing in February 2024. The 1st and 4th respondents raised a preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute should be heard by the Electricity Disputes Tribunal. The respondents also contended that the interim order had been vacated by consent on 27th September 2018, allowing revaluation, resurvey and rehabilitation works on damaged pylons to proceed. The applicants denied the vacation, claiming the order was only temporarily suspended to allow the works to proceed.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to determine a contempt application arising from a dispute involving the electricity sector.
  2. Whether the respondents were in contempt of the interim court order issued on 22nd September 2016.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Application for contempt of court dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Jurisdiction — Court's Power to Determine Contempt of Own Orders
A court has jurisdiction to determine whether a person is in contempt of its own order, regardless of whether the underlying suit is within the court's jurisdiction, and a tribunal established under sector-specific legislation has no jurisdiction to determine contempt of a High Court order.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements — Existence of Lawful Order
To succeed in a contempt application, a party must prove three conditions: the existence of a lawful order, knowledge of that order by the alleged contemnor, and a deliberate or willful failure to comply with the order. All three conditions must be proved; failure to establish any one condition is fatal to the application.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Vacation of Order by Consent — Effect on Contempt Application
Where an interim order is vacated by consent, it ceases to have legal force from the date of vacation. Alleged contemptuous conduct occurring after the vacation cannot constitute contempt because there is no subsisting order to disobey. The plain words of a consent order must be given effect without importation of terms not expressed.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Electricity Act Cap.145 s.109(1)
  • Electricity Act Cap.145 s.67
  • Electricity Act Cap.145 s.70
  • Electricity Act Cap.145 s.93

Cases cited (4)

  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Another v Edward Musisi (Misc. Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] All ER 567
  • Nambi v Lwanga (Misc. Application No. 213 of 2017)
  • Ssempebwa and Others v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 5 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

[2026] UGHC 153
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.