Wakilii

Muriisa v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 035 of 2012)

High Court · [2012] UGHC 470 · 2012 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking prerogative orders to enforce High Court and Court of Appeal orders requiring the 4th respondent to vacate office and the Electoral Commission to conduct fresh elections
Decision
Respondents found in contempt of court and ordered to purge themselves by complying with existing High Court orders within 14 days, failing which they risk 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

The court found all four respondents in contempt of court for failing to comply with High Court orders requiring the 4th respondent to vacate the office of LC3 Chairperson and the Electoral Commission to conduct fresh elections. The court held that a party who knows of a court order, whether regular or irregular, cannot disobey it but must apply to have it set aside. Pendency of an appeal without a stay of execution does not excuse non-compliance. The court rejected the argument that Section 95(3)(b) of the Parliamentary Elections Act applies to Local Council elections, holding that LC3 officials must automatically vacate office upon election nullification unless a stay is obtained. State organs are duty-bound under Article 128(3) of the Constitution to give effect to court orders whether or not they were parties to the proceedings.

Outcome

Respondents found in contempt of court and ordered to purge themselves by complying with existing High Court orders within 14 days, failing which they risk committal to civil prison

Facts

In the 2011 local council elections, the 4th respondent was elected LC3 Chairperson for Buremba Sub County. His election was nullified by the High Court at Mbarara in Election Petition No. 10 of 2011. The court declared the seat vacant and directed the Electoral Commission (3rd respondent) in writing to conduct fresh elections. Both the 3rd and 4th respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal. The 4th respondent applied for stay of execution, which was dismissed. The 3rd respondent did not apply for a stay. Despite the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the stay application and the absence of any stay for the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent continued to occupy the office and receive salary from the 2nd respondent, and the 3rd respondent failed to organize fresh elections. The applicant brought this judicial review application to enforce the court orders.

Issues

  1. Whether there has been contempt of court orders by the respondents.
  2. What are the remedies available for contempt of court.

Orders

  • The 4th Respondent is ordered to vacate the office of Chairman LC3 Buremba Sub-County within 14 days from 26 June 2012.
  • The 1st and 2nd Respondents, specifically the Chief Administrative Officer of the 2nd Respondent, are ordered to ensure that the 4th Respondent vacates office as ordered.
  • The 3rd Respondent is directed and ordered to organize and conduct a fresh election for the post of Chairman LC3 Buremba Sub-County.
  • In the event of failure to comply, 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 the application are to be met by the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Compliance with Court Orders — Duty to Obey Orders Regardless of Belief in Their Validity
A party who knows of a court order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it. It is not for the party to judge whether the order is correct or to determine such questions themselves. A party's recourse is to apply to the court to have the order discharged. As long as the order exists, it must not be disobeyed.
Appeals — Effect of Appeal on Execution — Pendency of Appeal Without Stay
The pendency of an appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of execution. Where an appeal is lodged but no stay of execution is obtained, the court order remains executable and must be complied with by whomever it is directed to. The dismissal of an application for stay of execution restores the status quo and requires immediate compliance with the court order.
Local Council Elections — Application of Parliamentary Elections Act — Section 95(3)(b) PEA Does Not Apply to LC Elections
Section 95(3)(b) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which provides that an MP is not automatically required to vacate office pending appeal of an election petition decision, does not apply to Local Council elections. Section 172 of the Local Government Act only mandates the Electoral Commission to apply provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act with necessary modifications where there is a lacuna in laws governing local council elections. The mandate cannot be stretched to include Section 95(3)(b). Where a local council election is nullified, the office bearer must automatically vacate the seat until the appeal, if lodged, has been fully disposed of or withdrawn.
Constitutional Obligations of State Organs — Article 128(3) — Duty to Enforce Court Orders
Article 128(3) of the Constitution enjoins all state agencies and organs to give effect to court decisions and ensure their effectiveness. Court orders are issued in rem and bind organs and agencies legally or constitutionally mandated to implement them, whether or not those organs were parties to the proceedings. State organs are deemed to take cognizance of court orders and cannot avoid responsibility by claiming they were not made parties or were unaware. The expression 'such assistance as may be required' does not denote only a specific request by courts but ascribes generally to what organs are legally or constitutionally mandated and duty-bound to do in the ordinary course of their work.
Contempt of Court — Definition and Forms — Civil vs Criminal Contempt
Contempt of court is a disregard of or disobedience to the rules or orders of a judicial body, or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behaviour or insolent language. Contempt may be broadly classified as criminal contempt (involving Section 107 of the Penal Code) or civil contempt (a common law misdemeanor applicable by virtue of Section 14(2)(b) and (c) of the Judicature Act). The purpose of contempt powers is to ensure that justice shall be done and solely to prohibit acts and words that obstruct the smooth administration of justice.
Contempt of Court — Attacks on Judges — Imputing Bad Faith and Impropriety
It is contemptuous and borders on abuse for a party to impute bad faith to a judge or to assert that the judge's orders were motivated by improper purposes such as a desire to pre-empt an appeal. Criticism of a judicial decision must not cross the line into attacks on the personal integrity and professional honesty of the judge. Parties cannot be permitted to denigrate judges by portraying them as acting improperly or 'out of the ordinary' merely because the party disagrees with the decision. Such conduct constitutes insolent attack on the person of the judge and is unacceptable.
Contempt of Court — Remedies — Purging Contempt by Compliance
Where contempt of court is established by deliberate non-compliance with court orders, the appropriate remedy is to require the contemnors to purge themselves by promptly complying with the orders. In the event of continued failure to comply, the court may order that the contemnors show cause why they should not be committed to civil prison. Costs may also be awarded against contemnors.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (9)

  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd and Speedway Auctioneers v Edward Musisi (Court of Appeal Misc. Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • The Proctor & Gamble Co v Kyole James Mutisho and 2 Others (High Court Misc. 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)
  • Tennison Vs. Baker (1972) 1 ALL ER 997
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Misc. Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Hadkinson Vs. Hadkinson (1952) ALL ER 567
  • Church Vs Cremer (1 Coop Temp Cott 342)
  • Jam 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 v Attorney General and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 035 of 2012) [2012] UGHC 470 (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.