Wakilii

Tirupati Development (U) Ltd v Cissy Namaganda and Another (Miscellaneous Application 796 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 351 · 2025 Application Granted — Contempt Found AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from Civil Suit No. 0114 of 2022
Decision
Respondents found in contempt of court and ordered to pay fine of UGX 20,000,000 equally between them within one month

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

Held that the respondents were in contempt of court by resisting execution of the decree in HCCS No. 0114 of 2022 through publishing derogatory remarks on social media, misguiding tenants that the judgment had no force due to a pending appeal, and blocking the applicant from taking over management of the suit property. The court rejected the preliminary objection that pleadings were invalid due to counsel's expired practising certificate, applying Advocates Act s.14(A) which protects clients from invalidation of pleadings due to their advocate's disqualification. A fine of UGX 20,000,000 was imposed as penalty for contempt.

Outcome

Respondents found in contempt of court and ordered to pay fine of UGX 20,000,000 equally between them within one month

Facts

The applicant obtained judgment in HCCS No. 0114 of 2022 declaring the 4th defendant's appointment of the 3rd defendant as property manager illegal and issuing a permanent injunction against defendants from interfering with the suit property. Following judgment, the applicant took steps to enforce the decree by issuing public notices and taking over management of the mall. The 1st respondent, CEO of the 3rd defendant, blocked the applicant's officers from taking charge, destroyed padlocks on electricity control centres, disconnected power supply, caused arrest of security personnel, and spread messages on WhatsApp forums claiming the judgment was unenforceable due to a pending appeal. The 2nd respondent, chairman of the management board, circulated materials questioning the judgment's legitimacy and unilaterally appointed himself as property manager. The court had previously ruled in HCMA No. 0783 of 2025 that certain orders in HCCS No. 0114 of 2022 were self-executing and denied stay of execution.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents are in contempt of the judgment and orders of this honourable Court in HCCS No. 0114 of 2022.
  2. Whether the application is incompetent due to pleadings being filed by counsel without a valid practising certificate.

Orders

  • A declaration that the 1st and 2nd Respondents acted and continue to act in contempt of Court by publishing derogatory remarks and sentiments via social media specifically WhatsApp forums while directly undermining the Judgment issued by this honourable Court in HCCS No. 0114 of 2022.
  • The sum of UGX 20,000,000 is awarded against the Respondents as a penalty for contempt of Court orders in HCCS No. 0114 of 2022 to be paid equally between the Respondents and shall be deposited in this Court within one month from the date of this Ruling.
  • The Respondents shall bear the costs of this application.
  • Application allowed.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements — Standard of Proof
For an application for contempt of court to succeed, the applicant must prove three elements: (1) the existence of a lawful order, (2) the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order, and (3) the potential contemnor's failure to comply with or disobedience of the order. The standard of proof is higher than the balance of probabilities but not as strict as beyond reasonable doubt.
Contempt of Court — Resistance to Execution of Decree — Self-Executing Orders
Where a court order is self-executing and takes effect immediately upon pronouncement, any resistance to the execution of that order, including blocking the successful party from giving effect to the order, misguiding third parties that the judgment has no force due to a pending appeal, and continuing to act contrary to the court's declaration, constitutes contempt of court.
Advocates — Practising Certificate — Protection of Clients' Pleadings
Under Section 14(A) of the Advocates Act, where an advocate practises without a valid practising certificate, no pleadings, contract, or other documents made or action taken by the advocate on behalf of any client shall be invalidated by such event, and in the case of any proceedings, the case of the client shall not be dismissed by reason of any such event. The legislature deliberately protected litigants whose pleadings were prepared by an advocate without a valid practising certificate from having their pleadings invalidated or case dismissed.
Contempt of Court — Remedies — Fines
The purpose of contempt as a principle is to preserve the effectiveness and sanctity of court orders, and non-compliance must be punished. In determining the appropriate fine for contempt, the court must take into full consideration the facts of the case and impose a penalty that is proportionate to the contemptuous conduct.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (17)

  • Stanbic Bank Uganda Ltd and Another v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Wabudeya Beatrice v Attorney General and Others (HCMC No. 138 of 2016)
  • R v Commissioner of Police, Ex parte Blackburn [1968] 2 QB 118
  • Uganda Growers Cooperative Union v Mukwano Group of Companies [2008] UGHC 76
  • Re Contempt by Omodo-Omodo [2008] UGHC 92
  • Kabogere Coffee Factory v Haji Twalibu Kigongo (SCCA No. 10 of 1993)
  • Professor Syed Huq v The Islamic University of Uganda (SCCA No. 47 of 1995)
  • Nantayi v Sekanjako [2014] UGHCCD
  • Attorney General v Uganda Law Society [2014] UGHCCD
  • Rita Nantayi v Ali Sekanjako (HCMA No. 333 of 2014)
  • Jane Sempebwa and Another v Ndibalekera Magdalena (HCMA No. 176 of 2019)
  • Ssempebwa and Another v Attorney General [2019] 1 EA 546
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of EAC (Ref. No. 8 of 2012)
  • Betty Kizito v Dickson Nsubuga and Others (Civil Application Nos. 25 and 26 of 2021)
  • HCCS No. 0114 of 2022
  • HCMA No. 0783 of 2025
  • Kyambogo University case

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tirupati_Development_(U)_Ltd_v_Cissy_Namaganda_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_796_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_351_(23_September_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.