Wakilii

Mugisha v Ssemakadde (Miscellaneous Application 49 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 27 · 2025 Application Granted — Contempt Found AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from social media publications by the respondent, heard ex parte after respondent failed to appear despite proper service
Decision
Respondent found in contempt of court and sentenced to two years imprisonment

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 publications on social media platform X by the President of Uganda Law Society containing derogatory remarks about a trial judge and the judiciary constituted contempt by scandalising the court. The publications were calculated to lower the authority of the court and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. Respondent sentenced to two years imprisonment.

Outcome

Respondent found in contempt of court and sentenced to two years imprisonment

Facts

The applicant filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 263 of 2024 and Miscellaneous Application No. 1243 of 2024 in the High Court which were allocated to Justice Ssekaana Musa. The respondent, Isaac Ssemakadde, President of Uganda Law Society, published multiple posts on social media platform X (formerly Twitter) containing derogatory remarks about the trial judge. Between 11 December 2024 and 22 December 2024, the respondent accused the judge of having "unholy alliances", referred to him as exhibiting "cadreship", serving "elitist corrupt establishment", called him "small penis" Judge Musa Ssekaana with sexual harassment allegations, and referred to him as "Injustice Ssekaana". The respondent launched a hashtag "#SsekaanaMustGo" and mobilised followers to document alleged judicial misconduct. The applicant brought contempt proceedings seeking a declaration of contempt, orders restraining further publications, arrest and detention, and a fine of UGX 300 million. The respondent was served but did not file a reply or attend the hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's conduct amounts to contempt of court
  2. What remedies are available to the applicant

Orders

  • Respondent found to have acted in contempt of court.
  • Respondent to be arrested and imprisoned for a period of two (2) years.
  • Costs to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Scandalising the Court — Social Media Publications
Conduct that displays disrespect for the authority of the court or its officers acting in official capacity amounts to contempt of court. Publications on social media containing scurrilous attacks on a presiding judge, calculated to lower the authority of the court and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, constitute contempt by scandalising the court.
Judicial Power — Contempt as Affront to Popular Sovereignty
Under Article 126(1) of the Constitution, judicial power is derived from the people and exercised in their name. Any affront on judges is an affront on the people in whom judicial power vests. Insults directed at judicial officers for their judicial work amount to contempt of court as they undermine the constitutional basis of judicial authority.
Contempt of Court — Purpose of Contempt Law
The purpose of contempt law is not to protect individual judges from criticism but to protect the public interest in the due administration of justice by preventing acts calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or lower the authority of the courts. The power to punish for contempt exists to inspire confidence in the sanctity and efficacy of the judiciary.
Contempt of Court — Criticism versus Contempt — Distinction
Citizens have a right to criticise judicial decisions and express disagreement, even emphatic disagreement. Contempt occurs where wild and baseless allegations of corruption or malpractice are made against a court so as to hold judges to the odium of the people. Reasonable criticism of judicial acts as contrary to law or the public good does not constitute contempt, but personal attacks on judicial officers calculated to undermine confidence in the judiciary do.
Contempt of Court — Sanctions — Objectives
In determining appropriate sanctions for contempt, the court's objective is to protect public confidence in the due administration of justice by punishing acts which tend to abuse or make a mockery of administration of justice or lower the authority of judicial officers. The repeated nature of attacks by a person knowledgeable in legal matters justifies a custodial sentence to deter future contemnors.
Contempt of Court — Social Media — Threat to Judicial Independence
The exponential growth in the use of social media has created new challenges for the justice system through attempts to influence court outcomes or scandalise courts. Threats to judicial independence through personal attacks on judicial officers and disinformation amplified by social media must be checked to protect the rule of law.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (11)

  • Dawaru v Angumale (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2016)
  • Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (No.2) [2015] ZACC 10
  • Gilbert Ahnee v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] 2 AC 294
  • S v Mamabolo [2001] ZACC 17; 2001 (3) SA 409 (CC)
  • Brahma Prakash Sharma & Others v The State of Utter Pradesh [1954] AIR 10
  • In Re Ssebadduka (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2020)
  • Robert Austin Mullery v R [1957] EA 138
  • The State (DPP) v Walsh [1981] IR 412
  • Re Kennedy and McCann,[1976] IR 382
  • R v Gray [1900] 2 QB 36
  • R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex parte Blackburn (No. 2)[1968] 2 All ER 319

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugisha v Ssemakadde (Miscellaneous Application 49 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 27 (14 February 2025)
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.