Wakilii

Ssenkomi Herman and Another v Ssemakula Moses (Miscellaneous Application No. 1714 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 184 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex parte application for certificate of urgency to hear contempt application during court vacation
Decision
Application dismissed; applicants to seek hearing date after vacation

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

Application for certificate of urgency dismissed. The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency. The urgency was self-created as the applicants could have taken action in December 2024 or January 2025 when the alleged attack occurred, rather than waiting seven months to file the contempt application in July 2025.

Outcome

Application dismissed; applicants to seek hearing date after vacation

Facts

The applicants filed an ex parte application for a certificate of urgency to hear their contempt application (Miscellaneous Application No. 1697 of 2025) during court vacation. The applicants alleged that the respondent attacked their property on 23rd December 2024, destroying business equipment and threatening eviction from land comprised in LRV 4359, Folio 17, Block 7, Plot 130, Kibuye, Makindye Division, in violation of temporary injunctive orders issued on 27th April 2023. The applicants reported the matter to police but did not file the contempt application until 31st July 2025, seven months after the alleged attack. The main civil suit (No. 1094 of 2022) remained pending.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants demonstrated exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency to merit a certificate of urgency during court vacation.
  2. Whether the urgency was self-created by the applicants' delay in seeking legal remedy.

Orders

  • Certificate of urgency not granted.
  • Applicants advised to obtain the nearest hearing date from the Trial Judge for hearing of Miscellaneous Application No. 1697 of 2025 after court vacation resumes on 18th August 2025.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Court Vacation — Certificate of Urgency — Requirements
For an application for a certificate of urgency to merit consideration during court vacation, the application must disclose exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency and must not involve a self-created urgency by the applicant where earlier action could have been taken to seek legal remedy.
Civil Procedure — Court Vacation — Self-Created Urgency — Delay in Seeking Remedy
Where an applicant delays seven months after an alleged attack before filing a contempt application and then seeks a certificate of urgency during vacation, the urgency is self-created and does not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances required under Rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules.
Civil Procedure — Certificate of Urgency — Burden of Proof — Evidence of Loss
An applicant seeking a certificate of urgency must provide sufficient documentation and evidence showing the extent of damage suffered and the gravity of potential future loss to enable the court to assess the level of urgency involved.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Edge Technologies Limited v KCB Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 310 of 2025)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssenkomi_Herman_and_Another_v_Ssemakula_Moses_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._1714_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_184_(12_August_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.