Wakilii

Kiconco v Mucunguzi & Others (Miscellaneous Application 1198 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCFD 8 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from execution proceedings in a divorce matter
Decision
Application allowed against 1st and 3rd respondents; 1st respondent committed to civil prison for six months; 3rd respondent warned

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

Court held that the 1st and 3rd respondents were in contempt of a court order/warrant of attachment issued on 21st August 2023. The court found that both respondents had knowledge of the court order, had the ability to comply, but deliberately obstructed its execution. The 1st respondent was committed to civil prison for six months for obstructing execution by raising false alarms and threatening violence. The 3rd respondent was warned against unprofessional conduct. The 2nd respondent was found not in contempt as he had no knowledge of the court order.

Outcome

Application allowed against 1st and 3rd respondents; 1st respondent committed to civil prison for six months; 3rd respondent warned

Facts

The applicant obtained a warrant of attachment on 21 August 2023 to attach 150 heads of cattle belonging to the 1st respondent pursuant to a divorce decree. During execution on 4 September 2023, the 1st respondent raised an alarm labeling the court bailiff and applicant as thieves, attracting a crowd. He became violent and drew a spear threatening to harm the applicant. The 3rd respondent, as District Police Commander, had knowledge of the court order and verified the existence of the cattle but recommended an alternative execution method and reported to his superiors, effectively obstructing the execution. The 2nd respondent, an LCV chairman, appeared at the scene after the crowd had gathered and contacted the Deputy Inspector General of Police, leading to the execution being halted. The warrant was returned unexecuted.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents are in contempt of the court order/warrant of attachment and if so whether the respondents ought to be castigated for the said contempt by way of committal to a civil prison and ordered to pay a fine.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The 1st and 3rd Respondents are in contempt of the court order issued by the Deputy Registrar on 21st August, 2023 vide Execution Miscellaneous Application No.08 of 2023 (Arising out of Civil Suit No.068 of 2019).
  • The 1st Respondent shall be committed to civil prison for six (6) months for his contemptuous actions.
  • The 3rd respondent is warned against unprofessional conduct during his line of duty.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Definition and Purpose
Contempt of court consists of interfering with the administration of law, impeding and perverting the course of justice. It is not the dignity of the court which is offended but the fundamental supremacy of the law which is challenged. The sole purpose of proceedings for contempt is to protect the rights of the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be obstructed.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Pre-Conditions for Finding Contempt
Before a court can hold a respondent in contempt, four pre-conditions must be satisfied: (i) the existence of a lawful order; (ii) knowledge of the order by the alleged contemnor; (iii) the contemnor's ability to comply; and (iv) the potential contemnor's failure to comply.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Evasive Denial
When a party denies an allegation of fact in the previous pleading of the opposite party, they must not do so evasively but must answer the point of substance. A general or evasive denial renders the defense incurably defective. It is not sufficient for a defendant to deny generally the allegations; each party must traverse specifically each allegation of fact which they do not intend to admit.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Duty to Comply with Court Orders
A party who knows of a court order, regardless of whether they view the order as null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it. It is not for that party to choose whether or not to comply with such order. The order must be complied with in totality and in all circumstances, subject to the party's right to challenge the order. If compliance is not possible, the party must move court and bring to its attention the reasons for non-compliance.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Disobedience and Rule of Law
Disobedience of court orders strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. Litigants cannot be permitted discretion to choose which orders to comply with and how to comply with them. To allow court orders to be disobeyed would be to stride the road towards lawlessness and risk derailing the rule of law. Such violations, if unpunished, risk reversing gains made towards respecting the sanctity of court orders.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Punishment for Civil Contempt
Civil contempt is punishable by way of committal, sequestration, fine, or injunction. Imprisonment for civil contempt is properly ordered where the defendant has refused to do an affirmative act required by a mandatory order. Such committal is not punishment but is coercive to compel the contemnor to act in accordance with the order of court, and the contemnor is committed until they comply.
Civil Procedure — Contempt Proceedings — Nature of Proceedings
In contempt proceedings there are only two parties: the court and the contemnor. Though initiated by a litigant who brings the alleged contemptuous conduct to the attention of court, the application is between the court on one side and the alleged contemnor on the other. The applicant or litigant does not become a party to the proceedings but merely assists court by furnishing information about the alleged contempt.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (14)

  • Re Ivan Samuel Ssebadduka (Contempt proceedings arising from Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2020)
  • Johnson v Grant [1923] SC 789
  • Morris v Crown Office [1970] 1 All ER 1079
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)
  • Betty Kizito v Dickson Nsubuga & 6 Others (Civil Application No. 25 & 26 of 2021)
  • MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd v Macdowell Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 825 of 2018)
  • Barbra Nambi v Raymond Lwanga (HCT EMA No. 213 of 2017)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Mutambo Wepukhulu v Wasswa Balumywa & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 276 of 2012)
  • T. N. Gadavarman Thiru Mulpad Versus Ashok Khot and Anor [2006] 5 SCC
  • Stewart Robertson Versus Her Majesty's Advocate, 2007 HCAC 63
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Another Versus Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Supra)
  • Re Contempt of Dougherty 429, Michigan 81, 97 and (1987)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Company & 2 Others [1981] HCB 35

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiconco v Mucunguzi & Others (Miscellaneous Application 1198 of 2023) [2024] UGHCFD 8 (12 March 2024)
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.