Wakilii

Njuki Noor Mbabali v Ssenyondo Hassan (Miscellaneous Application 238 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 44 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to set aside ex parte ruling in contempt proceedings arising from Miscellaneous Application No. 1126 of 2024
Decision
Application dismissed; applicant remains in contempt and must purge himself before being heard

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 declined to hear the applicant's application to set aside an ex parte contempt ruling until he purged himself of contempt. The applicant, a Deputy Resident City Commissioner, had disobeyed a court order allowing new office bearers to be installed, thereby impeding the course of justice. The court held that service through the head of office under Order 5 Rule 20(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules was valid and that the applicant was aware of the proceedings but chose not to appear.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicant remains in contempt and must purge himself before being heard

Facts

The applicant, Deputy Resident City Commissioner for Kawempe Division, was found in contempt of court in Miscellaneous Application No. 1126 of 2024 and sentenced to six months imprisonment. The contempt arose from his refusal to allow newly elected office bearers of the Juma and Zukuli Muslim Group to access their offices following a court order dated 4 September 2024 directing their installation. The applicant claimed he was not personally served with the contempt proceedings and sought to set aside the ex parte ruling. The respondent, Secretary General of the Muslim Group, contended that service was validly effected at the office of the Resident City Commissioner, Kawempe Division, and that the applicant deliberately ignored the court process. The applicant argued he only received the court order on 14 October 2024 through the Office of the President, by which time the new committee had already been installed with police assistance.

Issues

  1. Whether a party in contempt of court can be heard before purging the contempt.
  2. Whether the applicant was validly served with court process in Miscellaneous Application No. 1126 of 2024.
  3. Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte ruling under Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Right to be Heard — Contemnor's Standing
A party in contempt of court who has disobeyed a court order may be refused a hearing until the contempt is purged where the disobedience impedes the course of justice by making it more difficult for the court to enforce its orders.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Public Officers — Service Through Head of Office
Under Order 5 Rule 20(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, service on a public officer in civil employ may be validly effected by delivering the court process to the head of the office in which the officer is employed, and such service is deemed sufficient even without personal service on the officer.
Civil Procedure — Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders — Order 9 Rule 27 — Sufficient Cause
An application to set aside an ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires the applicant to satisfy the court either that the summons was not duly served or that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing; mere assertion of non-service is insufficient where the evidence establishes valid service through permissible means.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Discretion to Refuse Hearing — Public Policy
The court's discretion to refuse to hear a party in contempt is a strong measure justified only by grave considerations of public policy, particularly where the disobedience undermines the court's authority and interferes with the administration of justice.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (5)

  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567
  • The Messiniaki Tolmi [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep 595
  • Jingo Mukasa v Rwaguma (Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2015)
  • Nicholas Roussos v Gulamhussein Habib Virani & Anor (SCCA No. 009 of 1993)
  • Western Uganda Cotton Company Limited v Dr George Asaba & 3 Others (H.C. Civil Suit No. 353 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Njuki Noor Mbabali v Ssenyondo Hassan (Miscellaneous Application 238 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 44 (23 February 2026)
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.