Wakilii

Muriisa Nicholas v Attorney General & 3 Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 035 of 2012)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 113 · 2012 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review under Judicature Act s.36 seeking injunction, mandamus, and enforcement of High Court and Court of Appeal orders
Decision
All respondents found in civil contempt and ordered to comply with earlier court orders within 14 days or face committal to civil prison

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 all four respondents were in civil contempt of court for failing to comply with High Court and Court of Appeal orders requiring the 4th respondent to vacate the LC3 Chairperson office and the Electoral Commission to organize fresh elections. Court rejected the argument that Parliamentary Elections Act s.95(3)(b) applied to local council elections through Local Government Act s.172, holding that when an election is nullified and stay of execution is dismissed or not sought, the office holder must immediately vacate. The 4th respondent's affidavit paragraphs imputing bad faith and impropriety to the trial judge constituted contempt. All respondents ordered to comply within 14 days or face committal to civil prison.

Outcome

All respondents found in civil contempt and ordered to comply with earlier court orders within 14 days or face committal to civil prison

Facts

The 4th respondent's election as LC3 Chairperson of Buremba Sub-County was nullified by the High Court in Election Petition No. 10 of 2011, which declared the seat vacant and directed the Electoral Commission to conduct fresh elections. Both the 4th respondent and the Electoral Commission appealed. The 4th respondent filed for stay of execution in the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed (Miscellaneous Application No. 39 of 2011). The Electoral Commission did not apply for stay. Despite the High Court orders and the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the stay application, the 4th respondent continued to hold office and receive salary from the 2nd respondent (Kiruhura District), while the Electoral Commission failed to organize fresh elections. The applicant's counsel wrote to the 2nd respondent requiring enforcement of the court orders, but neither the 2nd nor 3rd respondent complied. The applicant then sought judicial review.

Issues

  1. Whether there has been contempt of court orders by the Respondents.
  2. If contempt is found, what remedies are available.

Orders

  • The 4th Respondent must vacate office as Chairman LC3 Buremba Sub-County within 14 days from 26 June 2012.
  • The 1st and 2nd Respondents, specifically the CAO of the 2nd Respondent, must ensure that the 4th Respondent vacates office as ordered within 14 days.
  • The 3rd Respondent must comply with the court orders as per Annexture C within 14 days.
  • In event of failure to comply within 14 days, the Applicant is directed to promptly move court for orders that the contemnors show cause why they should not be committed to civil prison.
  • Costs of this application awarded to the Applicant, to be borne by the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Failure to Comply with Court Orders
A party who knows of a court order, whether in that party's view the order is null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it. It is not for the party to choose whether to comply with such an order. A party's proper course is to apply to have the order discharged, but as long as it exists it must not be disobeyed. Failure to comply constitutes contempt.
Local Council Elections — Parliamentary Elections Act s.95(3)(b) — Inapplicability to Local Council Elections
Section 95(3)(b) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which permits a Member of Parliament to remain in office pending appeal despite nullification of election, does not apply to local council elections through Local Government Act s.172. Section 172 only empowers the Electoral Commission to apply provisions of electoral statutes 'with necessary modifications' where there is a lacuna, but this mandate cannot be stretched to include s.95(3)(b), which specifically refers to MPs and reflects the importance attached to that office. Where a local council election is nullified, the office bearer automatically vacates the seat pending appeal.
Appeals — Stay of Execution — Effect of Dismissal or Failure to Apply
Where an appeal is lodged but no stay of execution is obtained, or where an application for stay is dismissed, the orders of the lower court remain in full force and effect and must be complied with by the parties. Pendency of an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of execution in local council election cases.
State Organs — Constitutional Duty to Give Effect to Court Orders
Under Article 128(3) of the Constitution, all organs and agencies of the State are enjoined to accord assistance to the courts as may be required to ensure that the decisions of courts are given effect. Court orders are issued in rem and bind all state organs and agencies legally or constitutionally mandated to implement them, whether or not they were parties to the proceedings. The expression 'such assistance as may be required' does not exclusively denote a specific request by courts, but ascribes generally to what state organs are legally and constitutionally duty bound to do in the ordinary course of their work, whether a request is made or not.
Attorney General — Responsibility for Actions of Local Governments
Article 189(1) of the Constitution places the Attorney General in direct responsibility for all actions of Local Governments in Uganda. The Attorney General is duty bound to implement court orders affecting local governments, whether or not formally made a party to the proceedings, and cannot avoid this responsibility by claiming lack of notice.
Contempt of Court — Attack on Judicial Officer — Affidavit Evidence
Where a party, on advice of counsel, deposes in an affidavit that a judge acted in bad faith, imputes improper motives, or suggests the judge acted 'out of the ordinary' with intent to pre-empt an appeal, such depositions constitute contempt of court. They manifest insolent attack on the person of the judge and cast aspersions on professional honesty and integrity. The expression 'bad faith' involves actual or constructive fraud or a design to mislead, and imputing such motives to a judge is blatant contempt.
Contempt of Court — Remedies — Order to Purge and Committal
Civil contempt is punishable by committal, sequestration, fine, or injunction. Where contemnors have deliberately failed to comply with court orders, the appropriate remedy is to order them to purge themselves by promptly complying with the orders, with a direction that in the event of continued failure the applicant may move court for an order requiring the contemnors to show cause why they should not be committed to civil prison.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (9)

  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Speedway Auctioneers v Edward Musisis (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • The Proctor & Gamble Co v Kyole James Mutisho & 2 Ors (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 135 of 2012)
  • Bashaija Kazoora John v Bitekyerezo Medard and Electoral Commission (High Court Election Petition No. HCT-05-CV-EP-004-2004)
  • Jennison Vs. Baker (1972) 1 ALL ER 997
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Hadkinson Vs. Hadkinson (1952) ALL ER 567
  • Church Vs Cremer (1 Coop Temp Cott 342)
  • Jani Properties Ltd. Vs. Dar es Salaam City Council (1966) EA 281
  • Struggle (U) Ltd Vs. Pan World Insurance Co. Ltd (1990) KALR 46-47

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Muriisa Nicholas v Attorney General & 3 Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 035 of 2012) [2012] UGHC 113 (26 June 2012)
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.