Wakilii

Vegol Limited v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 154 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGCOMMC 99 · 2023 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 failure to comply with garnishee order absolute
Decision
Respondent found in contempt and ordered to pay decretal sum, general damages, and costs

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 High Court held that Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd was in contempt of court for failing to comply with a garnishee order absolute requiring payment of UGX 878,094,203 to Vegol Limited. The court found all four elements of civil contempt established: existence of the order, knowledge of the order, failure to comply, and wilful malafide non-compliance. The bank was ordered to pay the decretal sum plus UGX 50,000,000 in general damages and costs.

Outcome

Respondent found in contempt and ordered to pay decretal sum, general damages, and costs

Facts

Vegol Limited obtained judgment against Sanjay Trading Co. Limited in Civil Suit No. 388 of 2022 for UGX 878,094,203 plus interest and costs. When the judgment debtor failed to pay, Vegol filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1565 of 2022 seeking garnishee orders against Sanjay Trading's bankers, including Stanbic Bank. On 15 December 2022, a garnishee order nisi was issued, which was made absolute on 22 December 2022 and served on Stanbic Bank the same day. The garnishee order absolute directed Stanbic Bank to pay UGX 898,240,707 to Vegol's lawyers. Stanbic Bank's representative, Ronald Tumusiime, had confirmed to the court that the account held sufficient funds to satisfy the decree. However, Stanbic Bank subsequently failed to pay, claiming the account was insufficiently funded and that the earlier representation was a mistake. Vegol then brought this contempt application.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent is in contempt of Court in Miscellaneous Application No.1565 of 2022?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The Respondent is in contempt of Court, when they failed to honor the orders of this Court in Miscellaneous Application No.1565 of 2022.
  • The Respondent is directed to pay the Applicant the decretal sum of UGX 878,094,203 (Uganda Shillings Eight Hundred Seventy-Eight Million, Ninety-Four Thousand Two Hundred Three only).
  • The Respondent shall pay the Applicant general damages of UGX 50,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Fifty Million only).
  • The Respondent shall pay costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Elements Required for Finding of Civil Contempt
Before any action can be found to amount to contempt of court, four elements must be established: (i) the existence of an order; (ii) the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order; (iii) the potential contemnor's failure to comply with the order; and (iv) that the non-compliance was wilful and malafide.
Civil Procedure — Garnishee Orders — Duty to Comply with Garnishee Order Absolute
A party who knows of a court order, regardless of whether in the view of that party the order is null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it by reason of what the party regards the order to be. The order must be complied with in totality, in all circumstances by the party concerned, subject to that party's right to challenge the order by way of revision, review, or appeal.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Duty to Move Court if Compliance Not Possible
Where a party finds compliance with a court order not possible for some genuine reason, it is the responsibility and duty of that party to appropriately move the court that issued the order and bring to the attention of the court the reasons for non-compliance. Failure to do so may support a finding of contempt.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Wilful and Malafide Non-Compliance
The inference that a party's non-compliance with a court order was wilful and malafide may be drawn from the ability of the party to exercise control over the subject matter, and also when the party not only has actual knowledge but has knowledge of such other facts as would in the circumstances show bad faith.
Damages & Quantum — General Damages — Assessment for Contempt of Court
In assessing general damages for contempt of court arising from failure to comply with a garnishee order, the court considers the value of the subject matter, the economic inconvenience that the plaintiff may have been put through, and the nature and extent of the injury suffered.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (8)

  • Professor Frederick E Ssempebwa and Others v Attorney General (SC Civil Application No. 05 of 2019)
  • In The Matter of Contempt of Court Proceedings; Re: Ivan Samuel Ssebbaduka v The Chairman Electoral Commission and 3 Others (Presidential Election Petition No. 01 of 2020)
  • Pheko, and others Vs Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (No.2) [2015] ZACC10
  • Housing Finance Bank Limited and Another v Edward Musisi (CA Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Amrit Goyal v Harichand Goyal and 3 Others (CA Civil Application No. 109 of 2004)
  • Storms Vs Hutchinson [1905] A.C 515
  • Crown Beverages Ltd v Sendu Edward (SC Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2005)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank Vs Kigozi [2002] 1 EA 305

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Vegol Limited v Stanbic Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 154 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 99 (26 September 2023)
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.