Wakilii

Ssenyondo v Galiwango & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 971 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 48 · 2025 Application Granted — Committal to Prison AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from alleged disobedience of court orders in Trust Miscellaneous Cause No. 166 of 2022
Decision
Application granted. Three respondents (1st, 2nd, 6th) committed to civil prison for 12 months for contempt. One respondent (3rd) imprisoned for 12 months. One respondent (4th) given suspended sentence with compensation order. One respondent (5th) cleared.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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

Held that the 1st, 2nd, and 6th respondents acted in contempt of court by dismantling padlocks and preventing access to offices of Juma and Zukuuli Trust in willful disobedience of court orders dated 4 September 2024. Warrants of arrest issued and the contemnors committed to civil prison for 12 months. The 4th respondent received a suspended sentence of 6 months with compensation order. The 5th respondent was cleared of wrongdoing.

Outcome

Application granted. Three respondents (1st, 2nd, 6th) committed to civil prison for 12 months for contempt. One respondent (3rd) imprisoned for 12 months. One respondent (4th) given suspended sentence with compensation order. One respondent (5th) cleared.

Facts

The applicant was elected as General Secretary of Juma and Zukuuli Trust following court-ordered elections held on 7 September 2024 pursuant to orders in Miscellaneous Cause No. 166 of 2022. The court had directed mediators to conduct a general assembly to pass a new constitution and elect new office bearers, who were to assume office with immediate effect. On 24 September 2024, the respondents dismantled padlocks on the offices of Juma and Zukuuli located at Kawempe Muslim Secondary School and prevented the newly elected office bearers from accessing the premises. The respondents were aware of the court orders. When summoned to appear in court on 7 October 2024 to explain their conduct, the respondents refused to attend. Warrants of arrest were subsequently issued. Some respondents eventually appeared, while others remained at large.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents acted in contempt of court orders issued on 4 September 2024 in Miscellaneous Cause No. 166 of 2022.
  2. What remedies are available to the applicant for contemptuous conduct.

Orders

  • A strong warning issued against Sheikh Muhammad Lunanoba and his allies and agents to stop causing disobedience of lawful court orders.
  • Warrant of arrest issued against the 1st respondent (Lukman Galiwango Malende), 2nd respondent (Khalifan Lutaaya), and 6th respondent (Kinene Hassan).
  • The 1st, 2nd, and 6th respondents committed to civil prison for 12 months for contemptuous conduct.
  • The 3rd respondent imprisoned for 12 months at Luzira prison for contempt.
  • The 4th respondent given a suspended sentence of 6 months and ordered to pay 1,000,000 UGX to Juma and Zukuuli as compensation within 3 months.
  • The 5th respondent cleared of wrongdoing.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Elements to be Proved
For a court to find a party in civil contempt, three elements must be proved: (1) the non-compliant party was aware of the court order; (2) the non-compliant party knowingly and willfully violated the court order despite having the ability to comply; and (3) the non-compliant party did not have any reasonable explanation for disobeying the order.
Contempt of Court — Purpose and Rationale — Protection of Public Interest
The purpose of the law of contempt is to protect the machinery of justice and the interests of the public by preventing interference in the course of justice and maintaining the authority of the law, but it is a weapon that must be used sparingly.
Contempt of Court — Willful Disobedience — Dismantling Padlocks and Preventing Access
Where parties dismantle padlocks and prevent newly appointed office bearers from accessing premises in deliberate disobedience of clear and unambiguous court orders installing those office bearers, such conduct constitutes willful contempt of court warranting committal to prison.
Contempt of Court — Refusal to Appear — Aggravating Factor
Where alleged contemnors refuse to appear in court when summoned to explain their conduct, such refusal is itself contemptuous and constitutes an aggravating factor in assessing their disobedience of court orders.
Contempt of Court — Sanctions — Imprisonment
Courts have the power to punish contempt of court with imprisonment or a fine or both. Where contemnors fail to appear to explain their disobedience and show no cause why they should not be committed to prison, imprisonment is an appropriate sanction to protect the authority and dignity of the court.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Re Contempt of Dougherty 429 Mich 81, 97 (1987)
  • Ambar v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 322
  • Afribank (Nig) Plc v Yelwa (2011) 12 NWLR 286

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssenyondo v Galiwango & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 971 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 48 (26 February 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.