Wakilii

Lukman Galiwango and Others v Ssenyondo Hassan (Miscellaneous Application 429 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 35 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution of contempt orders and release of imprisoned applicant pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicants remain subject to contempt orders until they purge themselves

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

The High Court dismissed the application for stay of execution of contempt orders. The court held that applicants in continuing contempt of court orders who have not purged themselves cannot be heard until they comply with the original orders or purge the contempt. The court found that the applicants' continued disobedience impeded the course of justice with no other effective means of enforcement. Even considering the merits, the applicants failed to prove substantial loss that could not be compensated by damages or an imminent threat of execution.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; applicants remain subject to contempt orders until they purge themselves

Facts

The applicants were found in contempt of court orders issued in Miscellaneous Cause No. 166 of 2022, which directed that new office bearers be installed in the Juma & Zukuuli Muslim Group in Uganda. The applicants obstructed the new office bearers from occupying their offices. On 27 February 2025, the trial judge committed the applicants to civil prison for 12 months for contempt. The third applicant was imprisoned on 4 March 2025. The applicants filed a notice of appeal on 28 February 2025 and sought stay of execution of the contempt orders and release of the third applicant pending appeal. The respondent opposed the application, contending that the applicants remained in continuing contempt and had not purged themselves. The applicants did not file evidence showing compliance with the original court orders or any willingness to comply.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants, being in contempt of court, can be heard in an application for stay of execution until they purge their contempt.
  2. Whether the applicants have satisfied the conditions for stay of execution under Order 43 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. Whether the applicants have demonstrated substantial loss that cannot be atoned for in damages.
  4. Whether there is an imminent threat of execution of the contempt orders.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Contemnor's Right to Be Heard — Requirement to Purge Contempt
A party in contempt of court by disobeying existing court orders cannot be heard in a different but related cause or motion unless and until such person has purged himself or herself of the contempt by compliance with the original order, apology, payment of compensation or costs.
Contempt of Court — Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearing Contemnors
A party in contempt may apply to purge the contempt, appeal with a view to setting aside the order on which their contempt is founded, or in some cases defend themselves when an application is subsequently made against them, but the court retains discretion whether to hear the contemnor.
Contempt of Court — Exercise of Discretion to Decline to Hear Contemnor
Where a contemnor not only fails to comply with an order of court but makes it clear that he will continue to defy the court's authority, and where the contempt impedes the course of justice with no other effective way of enforcing obedience, the court is entitled to exercise its discretion to decline to hear the contemnor.
Stay of Execution — Conditions Under Order 43 Rule 4(3) CPR
No order for stay of execution shall be made unless the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made, that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been given for due performance of the decree or order as may ultimately be binding upon the applicant.
Stay of Execution — Proof of Substantial Loss
It is not enough for an applicant to state that deprivation of liberty cannot be atoned by any amount of money without further details of anticipated loss; where there is proof of wrongful imprisonment, it is a tort that can be atoned by payment of damages in compensation.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (26)

  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Theodore Ssekikubo and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Application No. 3 of 2014)
  • Ujagar Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd [1966] EA 26
  • Kyejusa Henry and Choclas Financial Services Ltd v Placid Maria Ssekamate and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 823 of 2024)
  • Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter and 5 Others [2013] KECA 378
  • Miao Hua Xian v DFCU Bank and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 772 of 2022)
  • Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd v International Air Transport Association (Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)
  • Chuck v Crener (1 Corp Jemp 342)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Another v Edward Musisi (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde v Mugisha Hashim Mugisha (Miscellaneous Application No. 137 of 2025)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] P 285
  • Musisi and Another v Namugenyi Margaret (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 19 of 2011)
  • Corcoran v Corcoran [1950] 1 All ER 495
  • Jingo Mukasa v Hope Rwaguma (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2015)
  • Pyke Vs National Westminster Bank Ltd (1977) Times, 10 December
  • X Ltd v Morgan-Grampian (Publishers) Ltd [1991] 1 AC 1
  • Mubarak v Mubarik (No 2) [2006] EWHC 1260 (Fam)
  • Ricketts v Mornington (1834) 7 Sim 200
  • Clarke v Heathfield [1985] ICR 203
  • Blue Sky One Ltd v Mahan Air; PK Airfinance US Inc v Blue Sky Two Ltd [2010] EWHC 128
  • Wildlife Lodges Limited v County Council of Narok and Another [2005] 2 EA 344
  • Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 549 of 2022)
  • National Pharmacy Ltd v Kampala City Council [1979] HCB 132
  • Wamboya Abu v Gidima Sulaiman [1997] II KALR 103
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Mabirizi Kiwanuka v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 39 of 2022)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lukman Galiwango and Others v Ssenyondo Hassan (Miscellaneous Application 429 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 35 (23 February 2026)
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.