Wakilii

Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH v Victor Ndyabagye (Civil Suit 296 of 2021)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 90 · 2026 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection in a defamation suit concerning whether a defendant found in contempt retains audience before purging the contempt
Decision
Defendant's written statement of defence struck off; suit to proceed ex parte until contempt purged

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

A party in continuing contempt of court has no right of audience and cannot be heard in proceedings until the contempt is purged. The Hadkinson principle, adopted in Uganda, bars a contemnor from defending or prosecuting matters while defying court orders. The right to fair hearing under Article 28(1) and Article 44(c) of the Constitution does not override this procedural rule, which protects the authority of the court and the rights of other parties. No constitutional reference is warranted where the law is settled.

Outcome

Defendant's written statement of defence struck off; suit to proceed ex parte until contempt purged

Facts

The defendant Victor Ndyabagye was found in contempt in Miscellaneous Application No. 383 of 2025 arising from the main defamation suit filed by the plaintiff Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. The contempt order imposed an injunction restraining the defendant from continuing to publish defamatory materials about the plaintiff, its officers, and activities, and awarded punitive damages of UGX 50,000,000 plus a suspended six-month prison sentence. The defendant did not purge the contempt and sought to defend himself in the main suit. The plaintiff filed a preliminary objection arguing that the defendant, as a continuing contemnor, had lost his right of audience and his written statement of defence should be struck off. The defendant argued that barring him would violate his non-derogable constitutional right to a fair hearing under Articles 28(1) and 44(c) and sought a reference to the Constitutional Court.

Issues

  1. Whether a contemnor has audience until he purges himself of the contempt?
  2. Whether the objection raises matters that need to be referred to the Constitutional Court for interpretation?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Defendant's written statement of defence shall be struck off the record.
  • Civil Suit No. 296 of 2021 shall proceed ex parte.
  • There shall be no reference of any of the matters herein to the Constitutional Court as they are vexatious and frivolous and this court is able to determine them with jurisdictional finality and constitutional efficacy.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Right of Audience — Hadkinson Principle
A party in continuing contempt of a court order has no right of audience before the court and may not be heard in further proceedings until the contempt is purged, except in exceptional circumstances or to challenge the regularity of the order itself.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Application of Hadkinson Principle in Uganda
The Hadkinson principle, which bars a contemnor from being heard while in continuing contempt, has been adopted and applied by Ugandan courts and is binding precedent in Uganda.
Constitutional Law — Right to Fair Hearing — Contempt of Court — Balancing of Rights
The non-derogable right to a fair hearing under Articles 28(1) and 44(c) of the Constitution must be exercised in the context of the rights of others and the authority of the court. A contemnor's right to be heard does not override the procedural rule that bars audience until contempt is purged, as this rule protects the court's authority and the rights of other parties to benefit from court orders.
Constitutional Law — Constitutional Reference — Article 137(5) — Substantial Question
A reference to the Constitutional Court under Article 137(5) is warranted only where a substantial, novel, and unsettled constitutional issue arises. Where the relationship between the right to fair hearing and contempt of court is already judicially settled, no constitutional reference is required and the request is frivolous and vexatious.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Jingo Livingstone Mukasa v Rwaguma (Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2015)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567
  • Attorney General v David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Adrian Juuko v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 2009)
  • Charles Harry Twagira v Uganda (Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2007)
  • Paul Sentambule v Jane Musoke (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 46 of 2024)
  • Hassan Lobby Moldba and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 25 of 2012)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH v Victor Ndyabagye (Civil Suit 296 of 2021) [2026] UGHCCD 90 (25 March 2026)
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.