Wakilii

Nambasi V Khan Investments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 602 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHCCD 126 · 2019 Application Granted — Contempt Found AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application arising from contempt of court order made by Assistant Registrar
Decision
Respondent found in contempt, fine imposed, vehicle ordered returned to court custody pending main suit

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the respondent, having sold a motor vehicle subject to a court order requiring it to be impounded and parked at the applicant's premises, was in contempt of court. The respondent was aware of the order and failed to comply without seeking court permission or providing justification. A fine of UGX 20,000,000 was imposed and the vehicle ordered returned or impounded pending final determination of the main suit.

Outcome

Respondent found in contempt, fine imposed, vehicle ordered returned to court custody pending main suit

Facts

The applicant filed Miscellaneous Application No. 543 of 2018 arising from Civil Suit No. 374/2018 seeking attachment of a motor vehicle (Mitsubishi Fuso Truck Dumper Reg. No. UBB 332U) before judgment. The Assistant Registrar ordered the vehicle impounded and parked at the applicant's business premises for three weeks until the parties agreed on a payment schedule for the outstanding purchase price balance. Despite this order, the respondent sold the motor vehicle to a third party. The applicant informed the court during the hearing of Application No. 602 of 2018 that the vehicle had been sold. The respondent did not rebut these allegations or prove the vehicle was in its custody.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's sale of the motor vehicle in defiance of a court order to impound it constituted contempt of court.
  2. What sanction should be imposed for contempt of court.

Orders

  • The respondent is found in contempt of court.
  • A fine of twenty million Uganda shillings (UGX 20,000,000) is imposed as a sanction for contemptuous conduct.
  • The fine must be deposited in court within 45 days.
  • The motor vehicle should be returned by the respondent to court or impounded and placed under court's custody until final determination of the main suit.
  • Application allowed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements Required for Finding of Civil Contempt
Before conduct can be found to amount to contempt of court, three elements must be established: existence of a lawful order; the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order; and the potential contemnor's failure to comply with or disobedience of the order.
Contempt of Court — Duty to Comply with Court Orders Regardless of View of Validity
A party who knows of a court order cannot be permitted to disobey it by reason of what that party regards the order to be, whether null or valid, regular or irregular. The order must be complied with in totality in all circumstances, subject to the party's right to challenge the order through proper legal channels.
Contempt of Court — Purpose of Contempt Proceedings — Safeguarding Rule of Law
The essence of contempt proceedings is not to assuage the feelings of the judge or uphold the dignity of the court, but to safeguard the supremacy of law and the rule of law which is fundamental in the administration of justice. A party with a court order must be assured that the order will be obeyed by those to whom it is directed.
Contempt of Court — Duty to Seek Court Permission for Non-Compliance
Where a party finds compliance with a court order not possible for some genuine reason, it is the responsibility and duty of that party to move the court that issued the order and bring to the court's attention the reasons for non-compliance. Defiance of a court order is not an option.

Cases cited (4)

  • Nambi v Lwanga (Miscellaneous Application No. 213 of 2017)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • In the Matter of Collins Odumba [2016] eKLR
  • Johnson vs Grant, 1923 SC 789

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nambasi V Khan Investments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 602 of 2018) [2019] UGHCCD 126 (28 June 2019)
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.