Sentambule v Jane Musoke (Miscellaneous Appeal 46 of 2024)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

Held that a party found guilty of contempt of court who has not purged himself of the contempt has no standing to be heard. Following Jingo Mukasa v Rwaguma, an appellant continuing to violate court orders cannot prosecute an appeal. The appeal was dismissed with costs and execution ordered to proceed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for lack of standing; execution to proceed against appellant

Facts

Paul Sentambule was found guilty of contempt of court on 25 April 2023 by Justice Nyanzi Yasin, who ordered him to pay UGX 15,000,000 as penalty or face six months imprisonment for violating a stay of execution order by conducting business activities (stone slating and pipe fabrication) on disputed land. The stay had limited use to farming and residential purposes only. Sentambule appealed against execution proceedings. A locus in quo visit on 15 March 2024 confirmed that Sentambule continued to operate the prohibited business on the land. When the appeal came up for hearing on 27 June 2024, the respondent raised a preliminary objection that Sentambule, as a contemnor who had not purged his contempt, had no audience before the court.

Issues

1. Whether a party found guilty of contempt of court who has not purged himself of the contempt has audience before the court.

Orders

• The appeal is dismissed.
• The execution against the appellant, Paul Sentambule, should proceed.
• The appellant, Mr. Paul Sentambule, is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Cases cited (4)

• Jingo Mukasa v Rwaguma (Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2015)
• Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 ALL ER 567
• R v Horsefery Road Magistrates Ex Parte Bennet [1994] 1 AC 42
• National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards v Arnold 348 US 37 (1954)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH v Victor Ndyabagye (Civil Suit 296 of 2021)

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