Wakilii

Winyi v Chongqing International Construction Corporation (CICO) (HCT-01-LD-MA-0098-2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 823 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for contempt of court arising from alleged non-compliance with decree in Civil Suit No. 16 of 2013
Decision
Application dismissed — contempt not proved beyond reasonable doubt

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 dismissed an application for contempt of court where the applicant alleged the respondent willfully disobeyed a decree ordering completion of land grading. The court held that contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and requires willful disobedience without lawful justification. Where the respondent demonstrated good faith attempts to comply but was obstructed by violent third parties and official investigations, the element of willful defiance was not established.

Outcome

Application dismissed — contempt not proved beyond reasonable doubt

Facts

The applicant obtained a decree in Civil Suit No. 16 of 2013 declaring him owner of land comprised in Burahya Freehold Block 39 Plot 5 and directing the respondent to complete grading of the land. Following the decree of 13 October 2023, the applicant alleged the respondent neglected and refused to comply despite reminders. The applicant wrote to the respondent on 6 February 2024 warning of consequences of non-compliance. The respondent deponed that it attempted to execute the grading but was met with violent resistance from two defendants in the original suit, Paul Barozi and Paul Kato Barozi, who brandished pangas and sticks and threatened destruction of machinery. The respondent further stated that the State House Department of Land Matters initiated investigations following complaints of illegal eviction and advised the respondent to halt grading pending clarification. The applicant then brought this application seeking to have the respondent and its directors held in contempt, committed to civil prison, and ordered to pay compensation and fines totaling UGX 1,000,000,000.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent is in contempt of the Court order issued in Civil Suit No. 16 of 2013.
  2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Application for contempt of court dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Contempt of Court — Elements — Willful Disobedience
For contempt of court to be established, an applicant must prove three essential ingredients: the existence of a lawful court order, knowledge of that order by the alleged contemnor, and willful disobedience or non-compliance with the order without lawful justification.
Contempt of Court — Standard of Proof — Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Contempt of court, being quasi-criminal in nature, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The jurisdiction to commit for contempt should be exercised with the greatest reluctance and only where deliberate defiance is established.
Contempt of Court — Good Faith Attempts at Compliance — Obstruction by Third Parties
Where a respondent demonstrates good faith and shows that steps towards compliance with a court order were frustrated by circumstances beyond its control, including violent obstruction by third parties and official investigations, the court may decline to make a finding of contempt. The law does not demand that a party place its officials in imminent danger of violence in order to avoid a finding of contempt.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (11)

  • Betty Kizito v Dickson Nsubuga & 6 Others (Supreme Court Civil Applications Nos. 25 & 26 of 2021)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd v Commissioner General URA (Miscellaneous Application No. 42 of 2010)
  • Hadkinson vs. Hadkinson [1952] All ER
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Secretary General of the East African Community (Reference No. 8 of 2012)
  • Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another v Edward Musisi (Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2010)
  • Obongo vs. Municipal Council of Kisumu [1971] EA 91
  • Megha Industries (U) Ltd vs. Comfoam Uganda Ltd [2014] UGCOMMC 162
  • Industrial Development Corporation of Southern Africa v Aya Investments (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2863 of 2023)
  • Richard Odoi Odorne v Uganda Electricity Generation Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1088 of 2022)
  • Okwonga George & Another v Okello James Harrison (Miscellaneous Application No. 132 of 2021)
  • Re Ivan Samuel Ssebadduka (Contempt Proceedings arising from Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Winyi v Chongqing International Construction Corporation (CICO) (HCT-01-LD-MA-0098-2024) [2025] UGHC 823 (2 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.