Wakilii

Watwero Enterprises Ltd v Gulu District Local Government (Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 88 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of interim order arising from underlying civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Application for contempt dismissed with no order as to costs

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

The High Court dismissed an application for contempt of an interim order restraining the respondent from completing a construction project. The court held that the application was properly before it as civil contempt ex facie curiae, but found that the respondent's non-compliance was not wilful and malafide. The interim order was unnecessary in circumstances where the substantive application for temporary injunction had been withdrawn, and the respondent needed to complete the public project for the bigger public good.

Outcome

Application for contempt dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The applicant, a construction company, was contracted by the respondent district local government to construct classroom blocks. The respondent terminated the contract on 13 May 2013, prompting the applicant to file suit for breach of contract. The applicant obtained an interim order on 24 March 2022 restraining the respondent from completing the classroom blocks pending disposal of a temporary injunction application. The respondent initially complied, but after seven months handed the project to a new contractor in November 2022. The new contractor completed the classroom blocks by January 2024. The applicant withdrew the temporary injunction application in March 2024 but then launched contempt proceedings seeking exemplary damages of UGX 300,000,000, a fine of UGX 100,000,000, and costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for contempt is proper before court.
  2. Whether the respondent is in contempt of court.
  3. Whether the applicant is entitled to any reliefs.

Orders

  • Application refused and dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Jurisdiction — Deputy Registrar v Judge
A Deputy Registrar lacks power to hear an application for civil contempt as jurisdiction under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules does not extend to hearing such applications, but the power is reposed in a Judge. The Deputy Registrar retains the power to cite anyone for contempt committed in facie curiae only.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Ingredients of Civil Contempt
For civil contempt to be established, four requisites must be proved: (i) that an order was issued by court; (ii) that the order was served or brought to the notice of the alleged contemnor; (iii) that there was non-compliance with the order; (iv) that the non-compliance was wilful and malafide. The first three elements must be proved on the balance of probability, while the fourth must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Purpose and Remedy of Last Resort
The purpose of contempt proceedings is to protect the rights of the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be obstructed or prevented. The remedy of contempt is a remedy of last resort and should be used with great restraint. Even where an applicant satisfies all the requirements of civil contempt, a court may still decline to make a finding of contempt where the alleged contemnor shows he acted in good faith and was taking reasonable steps towards compliance.
Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Necessity and Appropriateness
An interim order should only be granted where there is something urgent to be restrained which, if not stopped, would render the substantive application useless. Where there is no claim for a permanent injunction in the head suit and no urgency, the grant of an interim order is unnecessary and inappropriate.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (9)

  • Ssempebwa and others v Attorney General [2019] 1 EA 546
  • R v Gray [1900] 2 QB 36
  • Florence Dawaru v Angumale Albino & Samuel Ondoma (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0096 of 2016)
  • Betty Kizito v Dickson Nsubuga & 6 others (Civil Application Nos. 25 and 26 of 2021)
  • Morris v Crown Office [1970] 1 All ER 1079
  • Carey v Laiken 2015 SCC 17
  • Leads Insurance Limited v Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions (Petition No. 5 of 2017)
  • Amrit Goyal v Harichand Goyal & 2 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 109 of 2004)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd & another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)

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.

Watwero Enterprises Ltd v Gulu District Local Government (Miscellaneous Application 3 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 88 (19 March 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.