[2025] UGHCCD 47

**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA**

**(CIVIL DIVISION)**

**MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 1126 OF 2024**

**ARISING FROM TRUST MISCELLENEOUS CAUSE NO. 166 OF 2022**

**SSENYONDO HASSAN:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT**

**(SECRETARY GENERAL- JUMA & ZUKUULI MUSLIM GROUP IN UGANDA)**

**VERSUS**

**NJUKI NOOR MBABALI::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT**

**BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE SSEKAANA MUSA.**

**RULING**

This application was brought under Section 98 and 64 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282, Section 37 of the Judicature Act, Cap 16 and Order 52 Rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 282-1 for the following orders:

1. A declaration that the respondent is in willful disobedience and breach and/or contempt of court orders and directions issued by this Honorable Court on the 4th day of September, 2024, vide Miscellaneous cause No.166 of 2022. 2. A warrant of arrest be issued against the respondent and the same be committed to civil prison for contempt of court orders and directions. 3. The Respondent be ordered to pay UGX 300,000,000/= (Uganda Shillings Three Hundred Million) for his willful violation of the Court Orders and directions. 4. The Respondent pays the costs of this application.

The application is supported by the affidavit of SSENYONDO HASSAN –the applicant stating;

1. That Kikabi Ismail and others **vide Miscellaneous cause No.166 of 2022** sued the management committee of Juma & Zukuuli group in Uganda to wit Sheikh Muhammad Lunanoba and Al-Hajj J. A Sebuta Malende. 2. That pursuant to the proceedings in the above-mentioned Application, this Court on the 4th of September, 2024, issued an Order and directions dated the 5th of September, 2024 directing the mediators, who are also judicial officers, to amongst other things, to conduct the general assembly to pass the New Constitution of Juma & Zukuuli Trust and thereafter conduct the election of office bearers under the new Constitution. 3. That it was an Order and direction of this Honorable Cout that new office bearers be installed and/or take office of Juma & Zukuuli with immediate effect. 4. That on the 7th of September, 2024, the appointed mediators read out and interpreted the said Court Order to all the parties who attended the general assembly and all respondents were present. 5. That the applicant together with others were elected as the new bearers and as ordered and directed by Court, they assumed office with immediate effect. 6. That the respondent being the Deputy Resident City Commissioner, Kawempe Division is very much aware of the existence of the Court Orders and directions and knows the new office bearers. 7. That in disobedience of the court order and directions, the respondent on several occasions hiding in the umbrella of being the head of security has declined to clear the new office bearers of Juma & Zukuuli Muslim Group in Uganda to freely access the offices located at Kyadondo Kawempe. 8. That on the 8th day of October, 2024, through a letter written by M/s Lukwago Matovu & Co. Advocates, addressed to this Honorable Court complaining about the violation of the Court order and directions by the respondent to which the respondent was copied in, and this Honorable Court issued an Notice to Show Cause on the 10th of October, 2024 to the respondent requiring him to appear before this Court on the 18th day of October, 2024 at 10:00am and he defied the Notice to Show Cause. 9. That the above said Court order and directions have not been vacated, reversed or varied by a Higher Court of law. 10. That the Respondent’s contemptuous actions of preventing the new office bearers from freely access the office to which they were elected in, have greatly affected the elected office bearers to diligently perform their duties as expected. 11. That the respondent contemptuous acts have been repetitive with impunity and the same is still continuing to date. 12. That the Order of the Court was cleared by every security agent as required and requested but when it reached the respondent who is the Deputy RCC, Kawempe Division, he sat on it and hitherto the same remain uncleared from his office. 13. That the Respondent, being the Deputy RCC, Kawempe, Division, is believed to have the ability to ensuring compliance of the order and directions of Court rather than interfering and violating the same willfully. 14. That it is in the interest of justice that this application be allowed and the reliefs sought be granted so that the punishment is given to the contemnor, who is the respondent herein. 15. Concluded by affirming his application for a Warrant of Arrest to be issued against the respondent for contempt of Court order and directions and that the respondent be penalized by ordering him to pay punitive sum of UGX. 300,000.000/-.

The Respondent was duly served with the Application but he refused/ or declined to file an affidavit in reply and a copy of the affidavit of service by Etuk Walter (court process server) on record explains how the service was effected.

***Issues***

1. *Whether the respondent is in contempt of the court Order?* 2. *What remedies are available?*

At the hearing of this application, the applicant was represented by counsel Matovu Muhammad of M/s Lukwago, Matovu & Co. Advocates. The applicant was present in court and the 2nd Secretary General together with the Treasurer of Juma and Zukuuli Muslim Group in Uganda.

The respondent, for no reason did not appear for the hearing of this application and did not file any affidavit in reply.

The court made directions to the applicant, to file submissions in support of this application, and it will now proceed to determine the application for contempt.

**Determination**

*Whether the respondent actions are in contempt of the court Order?*

The applicant’s counsel submitted that the respondent is in contempt of court issued on the 4th day of September, 2024 where it was ordered and appointed joint mediators who were also judicial officers to conduct the General Assembly to pass the New Constitution of Juma and Zukuli Trust and thereafter conduct election of office bearers to be installed or take office with immediate effect.

That prior to the election and after, the contemnor who is a deputy RCC-Kawempe and others like DPC and RPC had knowledge of the existence of this court order and they had been written to and it was wholly within their knowledge.

The respondent was very much aware of the existence of the court and he knows very well that new office bearers were elected and he has continued to disregard the order by pretending to be calling for the security committee for clearance.

The respondent has been acting under the influence of gratification or corruption to assist the persons voted out of office to remain in the office and is providing all technical support for this breach of the order and is in total abuse of his office of Deputy RCC-Kampala hiding under head of security.

The applicant’s counsel submitted that respondent has been in contempt and continues to disobey the court order with impunity and it was their prayer that he be imprisoned and also he pays a fine of 300,000,000/=

***Analysis***

Any person who moves the machinery of the court for contempt only brings to the notice of the court certain facts constituting contempt of court. After furnishing such information he or she may still assist the court, but it must always be borne in mind that in a contempt proceeding there are only two parties, namely, the court and the contemnor.

The position of the law is that for contempt of court to be found, the following principles have to be established: -

* Existence of a lawful order. * Potential contemnor’s knowledge of the order. * Potential contemnor’s failure to comply, that is, disobedience of the order.

The general principle is that a person cannot be held in contempt without knowledge of the court order. A party who knows of an order regardless of whether, in view of that party, the order is null or valid, regular or irregular cannot be permitted to disobey it by reason of what that party regards the order to be. It is not for that party to choose whether or not to comply with such order. The order must be complied with in totality.

The applicant led evidence to show that the respondent was fully aware of the existence of a lawful court and it was wholly executed when the membership of Juma and Zukuli held a general assembly at their headquarters and elected new office bearers under the security of police in the area for which the respondent heads the security committee and they were fully aware of the orders issued by this court.

The respondent’s change of heart to disregard the same court order puzzles this court and it leads credence to what the applicants have alleged against him, that his actions of disobeying the court order are perpetuated by corruption or gratification to appease the side that has bribed him. Corruption clouds right thinking members of society to the extent of thinking that a person is above the law and it is indeed absurd that a public servant could disobey a lawful order due to corruption. This is a country of laws and not of men and the rule of law prevails at all times and the respondent cannot be allowed to disobey the lawful orders at his whims.

The respondent refused to file a response or reply to the application in order to throw some light on what was alleged against him, this left this court with no option but to believe the version. The respondent seems to be hiding under the general mandate of the office of the RCC to chair the security committee. This type of order issued by court to restore office bearers or stop an illegality takes immediate effect and requires no clearance. This was not a land dispute in which the respondent and Deputy RCC would be required to oversee eviction or demolition.

The respondent has illegally given himself importance which he does not have to interpret the clear order given by this court and this is not his mandate and has no legal appreciation to give any legal guidance on court orders. The actions of the respondent were illegal and unlawful and he does not deserve to serve in this important office as a public servant. The impunity with which he handled this matter and refusal to file a response is a clear indication that his actions were perpetuated by corrupt tendencies and had no clear explanation for his wrongful actions or decisions.

This court gave the respondent clear guidance while he was trying to *‘confuse himself’* with legal interpretation of the court order. Inspite of the legal guidance which was given by court, the respondent continued to sow seeds of confusion and got personally involved in clear matters which were over and above himself. The disobedience of the court was not an innocent act by the respondent, it was real ‘deal’ for him to take some benefit from court order and this must be punished to send a strong warning to others who may using court orders as money making ventures.

Disregard of an order of the court is a matter of sufficient gravity whatever the order maybe as reiterated in *Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd vs. Commission General Uganda Revenue Authority* and that court of law never acts in vain and as such, issues touching on contempt takes precedence over any other case of invocation of the jurisdiction of court.

Any course of conduct which abuses and makes a mockery of the judicial process and which thus extends its pernicious influence beyond the parties to the action and affects the interest of the public in the administration of justice, is contempt of court. The rationale is about preserving and safeguarding the rule of law. A party who walks through the justice door with a court order in his hands must be assured that the order will be obeyed by those to whom it is directed.

This is because the public has an interest and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice. The power to punish for contempt of court is a special jurisdiction which is inherent in all courts for the protection of the public interest in the proper administration of justice, as Lord Atkin observed in *Andre Paul Terence Ambar Appeal No. 46 of 1935 v. The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago) [1936] 1 All ER 704, [1936] AC 322*;

Conclusively a court order is not a mere suggestion or an opinion or a point of view. It is a directive that is issued after much thought and with circumspection. It must therefore be complied with and it is in the interest of every person that this remains the case.

I find that the respondent’s disobedience and ‘non-compliance with the orders of court amounted to contempt.

*What remedies are available?*

The court having found the respondent to be in contempt of court, there is no justifiable excuse for the respondent to have continuously disobeyed the court order even after he was fully aware when the elections were conducted and new office bearers installed. What is therefore left for court is to determine the remedies available.

The High Court is enjoined to exercise its jurisdiction in conformity with the common law and doctrines of Equity where by its obliged to exercise its discretion in conformity with principles of justice, equity and good conscience respectively. *See sec.14(2) (b) (1) and 14(2) (c) of the Judicature Act.*

In the circumstances of this case, the court issues an order for imprisonment by way of committal to civil prison against the respondent-*Njuki Noor Mbabali* for a period of 6 months.

I so order

***SSEKAANA MUSA***

***JUDGE***

***This ruling has been delivered by the Registrar…….day of February 2025.***