Wakilii

Pegasus Technologies Limited v Richard Kisembo and Karumana Safaris Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2020)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 135 · 2025 Application Granted — Contempt Found AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from alleged disobedience of interim orders in underlying civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Respondents found in contempt and ordered to return motor vehicle within 14 days, pay fines and damages within 45 days, failing which 1st respondent faces imprisonment and 2nd respondent faces asset attachment

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 High Court found the respondents in contempt for deliberately removing a motor vehicle from CID Kibuli in violation of interim orders requiring its detention and preservation. The court held that all four elements of civil contempt were satisfied: existence of a valid order, clarity of the order, actual knowledge by the respondents, and intentional disobedience. The court imposed remedial and punitive sanctions including an order to return the vehicle within 14 days, fines of UGX 20,000,000 per respondent payable to court, damages of UGX 50,000,000 per respondent payable to the applicant, and imprisonment or asset attachment for non-compliance.

Outcome

Respondents found in contempt and ordered to return motor vehicle within 14 days, pay fines and damages within 45 days, failing which 1st respondent faces imprisonment and 2nd respondent faces asset attachment

Facts

Pegasus Technologies Limited instituted Civil Suit No. 990 of 2019 against the respondents for breach of contract. The applicant obtained interim orders on 5 December 2019 requiring detention and preservation of motor vehicle UAN 635G at CID Kibuli. The order was extended on 19 December 2019 until 14 February 2020. Both orders were served on and acknowledged by the respondents. Despite full knowledge of the court orders, the respondents deliberately removed and took possession of the motor vehicle from CID Kibuli. The respondents did not appear at the contempt hearing and filed no affidavit in reply.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents are in contempt of court orders.
  2. Whether the circumstances of the case necessitate any measures being taken against the respondents.

Orders

  • The respondents are directed to transmit to the applicant's premises at Plot 38A Martyrs' Way, Ntinda, within 14 days of this order, the motor vehicle registration No. UAN 635G which they removed from CID Headquarters, Kibuli.
  • Each of the respondents is to pay, within 45 days of this order, a fine of UGX 20,000,000 into court.
  • Each of the respondents is to pay, within 45 days of this order, damages of UGX 50,000,000 to the applicant.
  • Failure to comply will result in the 1st respondent being arrested and serving a term of imprisonment of two months.
  • Failure to comply will result in recovery from the 2nd respondent by attachment and sale of their properties.
  • The costs of the application are awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Elements Required for Finding
To prove civil contempt, the complainant must establish four elements: (a) existence of a valid court order; (b) the order must state clearly and unequivocally what should and should not be done; (c) the alleged contemnor must have actual knowledge of the court order; and (d) the alleged contemnor must have intentionally done the act which the order prohibits or intentionally failed to do the act required.
Contempt of Court — Classification — Civil Contempt Distinguished from Criminal Contempt
Civil contempt consists of disobedience to the judgment, orders or other process of the court and involves a private injury. It occurs outside the court's close realm and usually takes the form of disregarding court orders and judgments. Civil contempt must be brought to the court's notice by a litigant who moves the machinery of the court, though the true parties to contempt proceedings are the court and the alleged contemnor.
Contempt of Court — Knowledge of Order — Service and Acknowledgment
Actual knowledge of a court order may be established where the order was pronounced in the presence of the alleged contemnor and where a subsequent extension of the order was served and acknowledged via electronic means such as WhatsApp. The absence of any sworn affidavit disputing service constitutes prima facie evidence of the contemnor's awareness.
Contempt of Court — Sanctions — Purposes and Types
Upon a finding of contempt, the court may impose both coercive and compensatory sanctions. The purposes of punishment are to punish the contemnor, deter the contemnor and others from committing like contempt in future, and denounce the conduct in an emphatic way. Sanctions may include imprisonment for up to six months, payment of fines, compensation to the affected party, or orders requiring the contemnor to purge contempt by complying with the violated order.
Contempt of Court — Corporate Contemnors — Available Sanctions
Where the contemnor is a legal person, sanctions may comprise imposition of a fine, asset seizure by sequestration, committal of one or more directors or officers of the corporation, or imposition of a fine upon one or more directors or officers. Reliefs against a corporate contemnor may be granted by way of attachment of its property or imposition of a fine.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (10)

  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Re Ivan Samuel Ssebadduka (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2020)
  • Johnson vs. Grant SC 1923 SC 789
  • Morris vs. Crown Office [1970] 1 ALL ER 1079
  • Munib Masri v. Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL, Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company SAL [2011] EWHC 2579 (Comm)
  • Florence Dawaru v Angumale Albino and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 96 of 2016)
  • Kizito v Nsubuga and Others (Civil Application No. 25 of 2021)
  • Industrial Development Corporation of Southern Africa v Aya Investments (U) Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2863 of 2023)
  • Re Contempt of Dougherty 429 Michigan 81, 97 (1987)
  • Nambasi Nelson Ludambisa v Khan Investments Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 602 of 2018)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pegasus Technologies Limited v Richard Kisembo and Karumana Safaris Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2020) [2025] UGCommC 135 (13 June 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.