Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa v Aya Investment (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2863 of 2023)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that the respondent was in contempt of court for wilfully failing to deposit duplicate certificates of title as ordered. Although the respondent claimed the titles were lost, it did not prove it made all reasonable efforts to comply by obtaining special certificates or notifying the court promptly. The court imposed a fine of UGX 50,000,000 and damages of UGX 150,000,000 to deter future contempt and uphold the authority of the court.

Outcome

Respondent held in contempt and ordered to pay fine and damages within fifteen days, with alternative enforcement by attachment and sale

Facts

The applicant lent USD 81,765,318 to the respondent for hotel construction between 2007 and 2017, secured by mortgages over specified land. Following the respondent's default, the applicant obtained an ex-parte arbitral award in South Africa for USD 153,072,275. The award was recognised and enforced as a decree of the Ugandan High Court in June 2023. The applicant commenced execution proceedings seeking a warrant of attachment and sale. On 22 September 2023, the court ordered the respondent to deposit duplicate certificates of title within 21 days. The respondent did not comply. On 14 November 2023, a second order gave the respondent seven days to deposit the titles. The respondent's director was informed of the second order on 20 November 2023. The respondent claimed the titles were lost but provided no written explanation until 1 February 2024, two months after verbal notice was given during a separate application hearing on 1 December 2023.

Issues

1. Whether there exists a clear and unambiguous court order.
2. Whether the respondent had actual notice or knowledge of the two orders.
3. Whether there was an intentional failure to act or an act in contravention of the court order committed by the respondent.
4. Whether the circumstances of the case require any measures to be taken against the respondent.

Orders

• The respondent is in contempt of court.
• The respondent shall pay a fine of UGX 50,000,000 into court within fifteen days.
• The respondent shall pay damages of UGX 150,000,000 to the applicant within fifteen days.
• In default of payment, recovery may be made by attachment and sale of the respondent's properties.
• Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• The Civil Procedure Act s.48(4)
• The Civil Procedure Act s.98
• The Judicature Act s.233
• The Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.1
• The Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 r.3
• The Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.35
• The Arbitration and Conciliation Act s.43
• The Mortgage Act No. 8 of 2009 s.19(2)
• The Civil Procedure Act s.48
• The Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 r.51(1)
• The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 article 24

Cases cited (46)

• Munib Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL [2011] EWHC 2579 (Comm)
• United Nurses of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 901
• Surgeoner v. Surgeoner (1991), 6 C.P.C. (3d) 318 (Ont. Gen. Div.)
• Housing Finance Bank v Musisi (Civil Application No. 158 of 2010)
• The People v. Sturtevant, 9 N.Y. 263
• Poje v. Attorney General for British Columbia [1953] 1 S.C.R. 516
• Davy International Ltd v Tazzyman [1997] 1 WLR 1256
• Nicholls v Nicholls [1997] 1 WLR 314
• Bell v Tuohy [2002] 1 WLR 2703
• Shillitani v. United States, 384 US 364 (1966)
• International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994)
• United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258
• Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624
• Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418
• Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch)
• Enfield LBC v Mahoney [1983] 2 All ER 90
• Robinson v Robinson [2001] EWCA Civ 2098
• Hale v Tanner [2000] 1 WLR 2377
• Lightfoot v Lightfoot [1989] 1 FLR 414
• Blue Jeans Corporation v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 169 S.E.2d 867 (1969)
• Alken Connections Limited v. Safaricom Limited and 2 others, Nairobi Miscellaneous Application 450 of 2012 [2013] eKLR
• Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v. Secretary General of the East African Community Ref No. 8 of 2012 (EACJ)
• Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
• Republic v. Commissioner of Lands and 12 others, Ex Parte James Kiniya Gachira alias James Kiniya Gachiri, Nairobi HCMA No 149 of 2002
• Jacob Zedekiah Ochino and another v. George Aura Okombo and 4 others, [1989] KLR 165
• Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v. Mudginberri Station Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 98
• Wild Life Lodges Ltd v. County Council of Narok and another [2005] 2 EA 344
• Sinba (K) Ltd v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014)
• Julius Okwi v Moses Kirunda (Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2008)
• Rosemary Eleanor Karamagi v Angoliga Malimoud (Miscellaneous Application No. 733 of 2005)
• James Kabateraine v. Charles Oundo and another, HCCS No. 177 of 1994, [1996] 1 KALR 134
• Grace Ofwono v M/s Poland Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 699 of 2015)
• Kibuuka Nelson v Yusuf Ziiwa (Miscellaneous Applications No. 72 and 225 of 2008)
• Megha Industries (U) Ltd v Comform Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2014)
• Mark E. Kamanzi v National Drug Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 138 of 2021)
• Dilipkumar P. Patel v Kashyapkumar B. Patel (Civil Suit No. 0362 of 2021)
• Bishop Patrick Baligasiima v Kiiza Daniel (Miscellaneous Application No. 1495 of 2016)
• Nambasi Nelson Ludambisa v Khan Investments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 602 of 2018)
• KCB Bank Limited v Formula Feeds Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 681 of 2021)
• Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 (1911)
• Templeton Insurance Ltd v Motorcare Warranties Ltd [2012] EWHC 795 (Comm)
• Shamdasani v King Emperor [1945] AC 264
• Weston v Courts Administrator of the Central Criminal Court [1976] 2 All ER 875
• Izoura v R [1953] 1 All ER 827
• In re Freston, (1887) 13 App. Cas. 20
• Doyle v London Guarantee Co [1894] 1 QB 244

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Rwamyeri v The Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Portal (HCT-01-LD-CS-0046-2024)
• Pegasus Technologies Limited v Richard Kisembo and Karumana Safaris Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2020)

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