Wakilii

Sentambule v Jane Musoke (Miscellaneous Application 965 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 119 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of a contempt of court ruling arising from earlier land dispute proceedings
Decision
Application dismissed on preliminary objection that applicant in contempt cannot be 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 upheld the preliminary objection that a party found in contempt of court cannot be heard unless he purges himself of the contempt. Following the Court of Appeal decision in Jingo Mukasa v Rwaguma, the court held that the applicant, who had been found guilty of contempt and had not paid the penalty or ceased the contemptuous activities, could not be heard. The application for review was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish grounds for review under Civil Procedure Act section 82.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objection that applicant in contempt cannot be heard

Facts

Paul Sentambule was found in contempt of court in Miscellaneous Application No. 1052 of 2018 and ordered to pay UGX 15,000,000 or face six months imprisonment. The contempt finding arose from violations of a stay of execution order that limited use of suit land to farming and residential purposes only. Sentambule neither paid the penalty nor ceased carrying out commercial activities on the land. He sought to review the contempt ruling, claiming he was erroneously found in contempt because a house on the land was built by Moses Ssali, not him. A court visit on 15 March 2024 revealed that Sentambule continued to operate stone slating and pipe fabrication businesses on the suit land.

Issues

  1. Whether a party in contempt of court can be heard by the court unless and until he purges himself of the contempt.
  2. Whether there are grounds to review the ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 1052 of 2018 that found the applicant in contempt of court.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection raised by counsel for the respondent is upheld.
  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant, Mr. Paul Sentambule, is ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Right to be Heard — Requirement to Purge Contempt
A party who has been found guilty of contempt of court cannot be heard by the court unless and until that party has purged himself or herself of the contempt by complying with the court orders that were violated.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Continuing Contempt — Effect on Court Proceedings
Where a party continues to engage in the very activities that led to a finding of contempt and has not paid the penalty imposed, that party remains in contempt and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court for relief until the contempt is purged.
Civil Procedure — Review of Judgments — Grounds for Review — Civil Procedure Act s.82
For an application for review to succeed, the applicant must establish either a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or discovery of new and important evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the applicant's knowledge at the time the decree was passed, or any other sufficient reason.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Jingo Mukasa v Rwaguma (Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2015)
  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567
  • R v Horseferry Road Magistrates Ex Parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42
  • National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Arnold 348 U.S. 37 (1954)
  • FX Mubukuke v UEB (Miscellaneous Application No. 98 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sentambule_v_Jane_Musoke_(Miscellaneous_Application_965_of_2024)_[2024]_UGHCLD_119_(7_May_2024)
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.