Wakilii

Sempebwa & Another v Ndibalekera (Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of 2019)

High Court · [2019] UGHCFD 44 · 2019 Application Granted — Contempt Established AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court order arising from miscellaneous application seeking temporary injunction in underlying civil suit
Decision
Respondent found in contempt of court order; application granted with award of exemplary damages and penalty

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 2 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.

Good law Followed in 2 cases and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations fading — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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

The court found the respondent in contempt of a temporary injunction restraining dealings with estate property. The respondent transferred titles to herself and third parties after the injunction was granted despite her counsel being present when the order was made. The court declined to commit the respondent to civil prison to facilitate ongoing proceedings and family reconciliation but awarded exemplary damages of UGX 30,000,000 and imposed a penalty of UGX 20,000,000 for contempt.

Outcome

Respondent found in contempt of court order; application granted with award of exemplary damages and penalty

Facts

The applicants, biological children of the late Juliana Nabikande Ndibalekera, filed Civil Suit No. 39 of 2014 seeking revocation of Letters of Administration granted to the respondent. They obtained a temporary injunction in Miscellaneous Application No. 224 of 2015 on 13 April 2016 restraining the respondent from dealing with the estate pending determination of the main suit. The order was extracted on 15 April 2016, with the respondent's counsel present at the grant. In breach of this injunction, the respondent transferred estate property comprising Block 253 Plots 840, 841, 1348 and 1624 to her own name between June and December 2016, and subsequently transferred some plots to third parties. The respondent also applied by letter dated 27 December 2016 to be registered as administrator for all land belonging to the deceased. The applicants filed this contempt application in 2019. The main suit remains pending.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's actions amount to contempt of court.
  2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the reliefs and prayers sought.

Orders

  • The respondent is in contempt of the court order in MA 224 of 2015.
  • The temporary injunction issued in MA 224 of 2015 restraining the respondent and her agents from dealing with the estate of the late Juliana Nabikande Ndibalekera is still subsisting until the hearing and determination of Civil Suit No. 39 of 2014.
  • The registration and transfer of land forming part of the estate of the late Juliana Nabikande Ndibalekera by the respondent is illegal and in contempt of the aforesaid court order.
  • The applicants are awarded exemplary damages as against the respondent to the tune of UGX 30,000,000.
  • The sum of UGX 20,000,000 is awarded against the respondent as a penalty for contempt of court orders in MA 224 of 2015 and shall be deposited in this court within one month from date of this ruling.
  • The respondent shall bear the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements — Existence of Lawful Order, Knowledge, and Disobedience
For contempt of court to be established, three conditions must exist: a lawful order, the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order, and the potential contemnor's failure to comply with the order through disobedience.
Contempt of Court — Validity of Order — Duty to Obey Even if Irregular
A party who knows of a court order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it as long as it exists. An order remains in force until it is discharged, set aside, or recalled, and must be obeyed even if the party believes it to be incorrect.
Temporary Injunctions — Purpose — Preservation of Status Quo
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the question in the main suit is finally disposed of. Transferring property contrary to such an injunction constitutes contempt even where the transfer is claimed to be for purposes of preservation of the estate.
Contempt of Court — Sanctions — Imprisonment vs Alternative Penalties
In family disputes, where promoting reconciliation is a constitutional objective under Article 26, courts may decline to commit a contemnor to civil prison where there is an alternative sanction available and where imprisonment would not positively facilitate the ongoing case adjudication process.
Exemplary Damages — Purpose — Punishment and Deterrence
Exemplary damages are entirely punitive in nature and lie outside the field of compensation. Their object is to punish, deter, and express the court's outrage at egregious, high-handed, malicious, vindictive, oppressive or malicious conduct by the defendant.
Exemplary Damages — Categories — Conduct Calculated to Make a Profit
Exemplary damages may be awarded where the defendant's conduct has been calculated by him to make a profit for himself which may well exceed the compensation payable to the plaintiff. Transfer of estate property to one's own name in breach of an injunction, where such registration enables dealings that change the status quo to interested parties' detriment, falls within this category.
Exemplary Damages — Assessment — Two-Stage Process
In assessing exemplary damages, the court must first determine the appropriate compensatory damages, then consider whether that sum is adequate to serve the additional purpose of punishment and deterrence. If the compensatory sum is adequate for both purposes, nothing should be added. If insufficient as punishment, the court must add enough to bring it to a sum sufficient as punishment.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (15)

  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] All ER
  • Church v Cremer (1 Coop Temp Cott 342)
  • Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community Ref No. 8/2012
  • E. L. T Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • Megha Industries (U) Ltd v Comform Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2014)
  • Re Contempt of Dougherty 429, Michigan 81, 97, (1987)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • El Termewy v Awdi & 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 95 of 2012)
  • Obongo v Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
  • Esso Standard (U) Ltd v Semu Amanu Opio (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1993)
  • CASSELL CO LTD vs. BROOME (1972) 1 All E.R. 801
  • Rookes vs Barnard(1964) A.C. 1129, 1 All E.R. 367
  • WSO Davies v. Mohanlal Karamshi Shah [1957] 1 EA 352
  • Kanji Naran Patel v. Noor Essa and another [1965] 1 EA 484

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Sempebwa & Another v Ndibalekera (Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of 2019) [2019] UGHCFD 44 (26 August 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.