Wakilii

Ekau v Dr.Aceng & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 746 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 120 · 2019 Application Granted — Contempt Finding AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for committal for contempt of court arising from non-compliance with earlier judicial review orders
Decision
Minister of Health found in contempt, fined UGX 20,000,000, and ordered to pay Applicant's backdated entitlements

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 held that the Minister of Health was in contempt of a court order requiring her to facilitate the Applicant's appointment as a representative to the National Drug Authority within 30 days. The filing of an appeal and application for stay of execution after the deadline did not purge the contempt. The Minister was fined UGX 20,000,000 and ordered to pay the Applicant's entitlements from January 2017.

Outcome

Minister of Health found in contempt, fined UGX 20,000,000, and ordered to pay Applicant's backdated entitlements

Facts

The Applicant obtained judicial review orders on 24 August 2018 directing the Minister of Health to issue an instrument facilitating his appointment as the Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda's representative to the National Drug Authority within 30 days. The Minister failed to comply with this order. The Respondents filed a notice of appeal and applied for stay of execution on 30 October 2018, 37 days after the compliance deadline of 23 September 2018. The Applicant then brought this contempt application seeking committal to civil prison, a fine, and exemplary damages. The Minister defended on grounds that she had challenged the order by way of appeal and stay application.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Respondent (Minister of Health) was in contempt of the court order dated 24 August 2018 by failing to issue an instrument facilitating the Applicant's appointment to the National Drug Authority.
  2. Whether the 1st Respondent was in contempt by failing to ensure the Applicant took up his role within 30 days of the ruling.
  3. What remedies are available to the Applicant for contempt of court.

Orders

  • The 1st/2nd Respondent is found to be in contempt of court for failure to have the Applicant take his position on the National Drug Authority.
  • The 1st/2nd Respondent is directed to pay a fine of UGX 20,000,000 to be deposited in court within a reasonable time.
  • The Applicant shall be paid all entitlements and monetary benefits including allowances from January 2017 until he takes office as the Elected Representative of Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda.
  • Application allowed with costs to the Applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements Required for Finding of Contempt
Before any action can be found to amount to contempt of court, three elements must be established: (1) the existence of a lawful order; (2) the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order; and (3) the potential contemnor's failure to comply with the order.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Filing of Appeal or Stay of Execution Not a Defence
The filing of an appeal or an application for stay of execution does not constitute a defence to contempt proceedings where the contemnor has already failed to comply with a court order by the deadline specified. The uncompromising obligation to obey court orders persists until the order is varied, discharged or stayed.
Constitutional Law — Independence of the Judiciary — Obligation of State Organs to Support Court Orders
Article 128 of the Constitution requires all organs and agencies of the State to accord to the courts such assistance as may be required to ensure effectiveness of the courts. Any contempt of lawful court orders directly or indirectly infringes on the independence of the judiciary and undermines the rule of law.
Administrative Law — Ministers — Personal Liability for Contempt of Court
In exceptional circumstances, a Minister may be personally liable for contempt if he or she has engaged in action which amounts to default. However, the appropriate action will normally be to make a finding of contempt against a Minister acting in his or her official capacity rather than personal capacity.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Remedies — Fine and Compensation
Where a finding of contempt is made, the court may impose a fine to vindicate the rule of law and ensure compliance with court orders. Where the disobedience has caused financial loss to the party entitled to the benefit of the order, the court may also order payment of entitlements and monetary benefits lost due to the contempt.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (14)

  • Babra Nambi v Raymond Lwanga (Miscellaneous Application No. 213 of 2017)
  • Sendege Senyondo v The Bank Secretary Bank of Uganda and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2018)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567
  • Erasmus Masiko v John Imaniraguha and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1481 of 2016)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • In the Matter of Collins Odumba [2016] eKLR
  • Johnson v Grant 1923 SC 789
  • Kenya Tea Growers Association v Francis Atwoli and 5 Others [2012] eKLR
  • Clarke and Others v Chadburn and Others [1985] 1 All ER (PC) 211
  • M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377
  • Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1974] AC 273
  • Semanda and 2 Others v Kaheebwa and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1625 of 2016)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Another v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Re Contempt of Dougherty 492 Michigan 81, 97 (1987)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ekau Vs Dr.Aceng & 2 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 746 of 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 120 (17 June 2019)
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.