Wakilii

Kisaakye v Kadama (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 739 OF 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 52 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from alleged violation of temporary injunction restraining publication of defamatory articles
Decision
Respondent found in contempt and cautioned; ordered to pay costs

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 found respondent in contempt of temporary injunction restraining publication of defamatory articles. Although respondent denied authoring publications and interviewing with media, circumstantial evidence including personal photographs and quotes in newspaper articles irresistibly pointed to her involvement in causing the publications. Court held that a party who knows of a court order must obey it unless discharged, and failure to comply constitutes contempt. Respondent was cautioned against further publications.

Outcome

Respondent found in contempt and cautioned; ordered to pay costs

Facts

A temporary injunction was issued by consent on 20 March 2014 restraining the respondent from further publication of defamatory articles against the applicant. The applicant alleged that on 20 June 2014 the respondent wrote a defamatory letter to the Judicial Service Commission. On 4 April 2016 judgment was passed in the High Court Land Division in favour of the applicant. Subsequently, articles were published in Bukedde and Monitor newspapers quoting the respondent making defamatory remarks about the applicant, including that the applicant had stolen her husband and narrating her ordeal with the applicant's husband. The respondent denied authoring the documents or being interviewed by media houses, claiming certain documents were forged. The newspapers published personal photographs of the respondent in her home wearing a night gown.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent violated a temporary injunction by causing publication of defamatory articles against the applicant.
  2. Whether the respondent should be found in contempt of court.

Orders

  • The respondent is found to be in contempt of court order.
  • The respondent is cautioned not to cause any further publication of defamatory statements against the applicant.
  • The respondent shall pay the applicant costs of this application.
  • Application allowed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements of Proof
To prove contempt of court, the complainant must establish four elements: the existence of a lawful order; the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order; the potential contemnor's ability to comply; and the potential contemnor's failure to comply.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Standard of Proof
The standard of proof in contempt proceedings must be higher than proof on the balance of probabilities, and almost, but not exactly, beyond reasonable doubt.
Civil Procedure — Court Orders — Obligation to Obey
It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against or in respect of whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until it is discharged, even where the person believes the order to be irregular or void.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Circumstantial Evidence
Contempt of court may be established through circumstantial evidence where such evidence irresistibly points to the fact that the respondent violated a court order, even in the absence of direct evidence.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Remedies — Caution
Where contempt is established on circumstantial evidence, a caution is a proper remedy, as the jurisdiction to commit for contempt should be exercised with the greatest reluctance.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] ALL ER 567
  • Chuck v Cremer [1896] ER 885
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)
  • Mutikika v Baharini Farm Ltd [1985] KLR 227

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kisaakye v Kadama (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 739 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 52 (23 January 2017)
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.