Kyeyune v Tropical Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application 308 of 2022)
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
Held that the respondent bank was in contempt of court for failing to file loan documentation with the court as ordered within 14 days, despite subsequently providing documents to the applicant's advocates. A party cannot choose whether or how to comply with court orders. The court compelled compliance, awarded a fine of UGX 5,000,000 for contempt, general damages of UGX 10,000,000, and costs to the applicant.
Outcome
Respondent found in contempt of court, compelled to comply with previous court order within 14 days, and ordered to pay fine and damages to applicant
Facts
The applicant commenced Civil Suit No. 67 of 2020 disputing indebtedness to the respondent bank and challenging the freezing of his bank account. The respondent filed a counterclaim seeking to recover UGX 132,333,995. In Miscellaneous Application No. 226 of 2022, the Deputy Registrar ordered the respondent to avail court with readable loan application forms signed by the applicant and guarantors, disbursement and repayment schedules within 14 days from 9th September 2022. The respondent was served with the order on 14th September 2022. The respondent's company secretary deposed that documents were provided to the applicant's counsel rather than filed in court, and that the applicant's bank account was removed from write-off classification. The applicant filed the present contempt application alleging the respondent refused to comply with the court order.
Issues
- Whether the Respondent is in contempt of court for failing to comply with the court order dated 9th September 2022.
- What remedies are available to the parties if contempt is established.
Orders
- Declaration that the respondent acted in contempt of court orders issued on 9th September 2022.
- Respondent compelled to obey court orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 226 of 2022 and deposit readable loan documentation in court within fourteen (14) days from delivery of this ruling.
- Respondent to pay a fine of UGX 5,000,000 (Five million shillings) for contempt of court orders.
- Respondent to pay UGX 10,000,000 (Ten million shillings) to the applicant as general damages.
- Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Civil Procedure Act s.27(1)
- Judicature Act Cap 13 s.33
- Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1 Order 52 rules 1 & 3
- Financial Institutions (Credit Classification & Provisioning) Regulations
Cases cited (15)
- Kaahwa Stephen & Another v Kalema Hannington (High Court Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2011)
- Megha Industries Ltd v Conform Uganda Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 21 of 2014)
- Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (No. 8 of 2012)
- Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] All ER
- Church v Cremer (1 Coop Temp Cott 342)
- Kilama Lajul v Uganda Coffee Development Authority & 2 Others (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 324 of 2020)
- Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd vs Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority
- Margaret L.L Etuusa v Makerere University & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 181 of 2017)
- Geraldine Busuulwa Ssali v National Social Security Fund & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 116 of 2016)
- Prof. Elsam Magara v Makerere University and Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 497 of 2015)
- Bashaija v Electoral Commission & Anor (High Court Election Petition No. 4 of 2011)
- Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd v The Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
- Francis Butagira v Deborah Mukasa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1989)
- Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Company [1981] HCB 35
- Sutherland v Canada (Attorney General) [2008] BCCA 27
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.