Wakilii

Nambalirwa Zaffarani and Others v Dr Sheikh Ahmed Muhammad Kisuule [2025] UGHC 370

High Court · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from alleged breach of stay of execution order in civil appeal proceedings
Decision
Application for contempt dismissed for failure to prove that respondent breached the court order

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 contempt of court requires proof of four elements: existence of a clear court order, notice to the alleged contemnor, non-compliance with the order, and wilful or malafide non-compliance. Where the applicants failed to adduce evidence that the respondent perpetrated the destruction of property subject to a stay of execution order, and where the respondent had sold his interest in the suit land before the stay order was issued, the court cannot find contempt. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for contempt dismissed for failure to prove that respondent breached the court order

Facts

The applicants brought an application for contempt of court alleging that the respondent breached a stay of execution order issued on 16 October 2024 by demolishing the first applicant's house. The stay order restrained execution of decrees arising from consolidated civil suits pending determination of an appeal. The respondent denied the allegations and filed a supplementary affidavit through Mugerwa George, a third party who claimed to have purchased the suit property from the respondent in March 2024, before the stay order was issued. During locus in quo proceedings, the court confirmed that property had been destroyed but found that the perpetrators were never apprehended by police. The applicants sought a declaration of contempt, a fine of UGX 200,000,000, committal to civil prison, general damages of UGX 150,000,000, and punitive damages of UGX 100,000,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent is in contempt of court
  2. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Standing of Third Parties to Depone Affidavits
Any person who has knowledge of facts that could be helpful to the court in determining a suit conclusively may depone an affidavit and have it filed in respect to a matter before the court, even if that person is not a party to the proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements to be Proved
To establish contempt of court, an applicant must prove four elements: (i) that an order was issued by the court; (ii) that the order was served or brought to the notice of the alleged contemnor; (iii) that there was non-compliance with the order by the respondent; and (iv) that the non-compliance was wilful or malafide.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Clarity of Court Order
The court will only punish for disobedience of a court order if satisfied that the terms of the order are clear and unambiguous, so that it is easily understood by all and not open to various interpretations.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Personal Service Requirement
No order requiring a person to do or abstain from doing any act may be enforced by contempt unless a copy of the order has been served personally on that person.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Burden of Proof
Once the applicant has proved non-compliance with the court's order by showing the existence of the order and the respondent's non-compliance, the burden shifts and the potential contemnor must prove inability to comply or justifiable cause.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Proof of Breach by Alleged Contemnor
Where an applicant alleges that a respondent breached a court order but fails to adduce evidence proving that the respondent or his agents committed the acts constituting the alleged breach, the court cannot find the respondent in contempt even where the prohibited acts occurred.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Effect of Disposal of Interest Before Order
Where a respondent disposes of his interest in property before a stay of execution order is issued, acts affecting that property after the disposal cannot constitute contempt of the stay order, as the respondent's interest was extinguished before the order came into effect.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (5)

  • Mbarara Municipal Council Vs. Jetha Brothers Ltd, Supreme Court M.A
  • Ssempebwa and Others v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 05 of 2019)
  • Hon Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Another v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (HC Misc Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Wild Life Lodges Ltd vs. County Council of Narok and another [2005] 2 EA 344

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nambalirwa Zaffarani and Others v Dr Sheikh Ahmed Muhammad Kisuule 2025 UGHC 370 (24 April 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.