Wakilii

Ekau v Dr. Aceng (MISC. APPLICATION No. 746 OF 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 134 · 2019 Application Granted — Contempt of Court Found AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from non-compliance with orders issued in judicial review proceedings
Decision
Minister of Health found in contempt of court; fine imposed and arrears ordered to be paid to applicant

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 found the Minister of Health in contempt of court for failing to comply with an order of mandamus requiring her to facilitate the applicant's assumption of his position as the Representative of the Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda to the National Drug Authority within 30 days. The court rejected the respondent's defence that filing an appeal and applying for a stay of execution purged the contempt, holding that these steps were taken 37 days after the deadline for compliance had expired and could not excuse wilful disobedience of a lawful court order.

Outcome

Minister of Health found in contempt of court; fine imposed and arrears ordered to be paid to applicant

Facts

The applicant successfully obtained judicial review orders on 24 August 2018 compelling the Minister of Health to issue an instrument facilitating his assumption of office as the Representative of the Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda to the National Drug Authority within 30 days. The Minister failed to comply with this order by the deadline of 23 September 2018. On 30 October 2018, 37 days after the expiry of the compliance period, the respondents filed an application for stay of execution of the original orders, citing that they had filed an appeal and were awaiting hearing. The applicant then brought this application seeking a finding of contempt of court and various remedies including exemplary damages, committal to civil prison, and a fine.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st respondent who is the Minister of Health's act of not issuing an instrument that facilitates the applicant to take up his position as the Representative of the Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda was in contempt of court's order issued on 24 August 2018.
  2. Whether the 1st respondent's act of not ensuring that the applicant takes up his role as a member of the National Drug Authority within 30 days from the date of the ruling was in contempt of court's order.
  3. What remedies are available to the applicant for contempt of court.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The 1st or 2nd respondent found in contempt of court for failure to have the applicant take his position on the National Drug Authority as the elected Representative of Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda.
  • The 1st or 2nd respondent directed to pay UGX 20,000,000 as a fine, to be deposited in court within a reasonable time.
  • The applicant to be paid all entitlements and monetary benefits including allowances since January 2017 until he takes office as the Elected Representative of Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda.
  • Costs of the application awarded 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) existence of a lawful order; (2) the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order; and (3) the potential contemnor's failure to comply, that is, disobedience of the order.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Filing of Appeal or Stay Application Not a Defence to Contempt
Filing an appeal or an application for stay of execution against a court order does not purge a party of contempt where the order has not been complied with within the time specified by the court. The uncompromising obligation to obey court orders remains in force until the order is set aside or stayed by a competent court. A challenge to the order or assertion that it was null, void, or irregular is no defence to the obligation to obey.
Constitutional Law — Judicial Independence — Contempt of Court as Infringement of Independence of Judiciary
Any acts of contempt of lawful court orders directly or indirectly infringe on the independence of the judiciary as guaranteed by Article 128 of the Constitution. The Constitution enjoins all organs and agencies of the State to accord to the courts such assistance as may be required to ensure effectiveness of the courts. Disobedience of court orders undermines judicial independence and the rule of law.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Contempt of Mandamus Orders — Liability of Minister
A finding of contempt will normally be made against a Minister acting in his or her official capacity where an order of mandamus granted in judicial review proceedings has not been complied with. In exceptional circumstances, a Minister may be personally liable for contempt if he or she has engaged in action which amounts to default. A Minister who has taken the Oath of Minister to uphold the Constitution has a constitutional duty to comply with orders of court.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Purpose and Nature of Contempt Proceedings
The essence of contempt proceedings is not to assuage the feelings of the judge or protect the dignity of the court, but to safeguard the supremacy of the law and the rule of law, which is fundamental to the administration of justice. A party who obtains a court order must be assured that the order will be obeyed by those to whom it is directed. Disobedience of court orders with impunity would undermine the administration of justice and lead to anarchy.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Remedies — Fines and Compensation
Where a court finds contempt of court, it may impose a fine as a punitive sanction to send a firm message that court orders are not issued in vain and ought to be respected and obeyed as long as they remain in force. A court may also order the payment of arrears and entitlements to the party prejudiced by the contemnor's failure to comply with the original order.

Legislation cited (2)

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. 0042 of 2010)
  • Re Contempt of Dougherty 492 Michigan 81, 97 (1987)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ekau Vs Dr. Aceng (MISC. APPLICATION No. 746 OF 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 134 (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.