Kataabu v Kayongo and Another (Miscellaneous Application 573 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 210 (7 July 2023)

Full Case Text

# 5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (CIVIL DIVISION) MISC. APPLICATION NO. 0573 OF 2022 (ARISING FROM MISC. CAUSE NO. 317 OF 2020) 10 KATAABU SIMON :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT VERSUS 1. KAYONGO MOSES

# 2. COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REGISTRATION ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENTS

## BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE ESTA NAMBAYO

# 15 RULING

The Applicant, Kataabu Simon, filed this application under S. 33 of the Judicature Act, S.98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 52 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPR, against Kayongo Moses and the Commissioner for Land Registration, hereinafter referred to as the 1st & 2nd Respondents 20 respectively, seeking for orders that;

- 1. The 1st Respondent be committed to civil prison for contempt of court. - 2. An order directing the Respondents jointly and or severally to pay the Applicant damages and compensation to the tune of Ugx. 500,000,000/= (Five Hundred Million Uganda Shillings only) in order to purge the contempt. - 25 3. An order directing the Respondents jointly and/or severally to pay a fine that court deems fit to purge the contempt. - 4. Costs of this application to be provided for.

The grounds of this application are set out in the affidavit in support of the application sworn by Kataabu Simon and Jennifer Nanziri but briefly are: -

I. That on the 5 th 30 of March, 2021, a consent judgment / Decree was entered into by the parties and endorsed by this honourable court in Miscellaneous Cause No. 317 of 2020, Kayongo Moses –v- Kataabu Simon and the Commissioner for Land Registration.

- II. That under Clause 7 of the said consent judgment/decree, it was agreed that the Applicant would subdivide the land comprised in Kyadondo Block 250 Plot 202 at 35 Bunga, survey off and hand over an unencumbered title for land measuring 111 decimals to the 1st Respondent. - III. That the said Clause 7 also provided that the Applicant would do the same for another 22 decimals covering the 1st Respondent's perimeter wall but belonging to Richard Ssimbwa and Jennifer Nanziri. - IV. That the parties specifically agreed that the 1st 40 Respondent would negotiate with Richard Ssimbwa and Jennifer Nanziri, for the consideration payable in respect of the said 22 decimals. - V. That the Applicant duly subdivided Kyadondo Block 250 Plot 202 into 13 plots among which were Plots 1255, 1256 and 1260. - 45 VI. That Plot 1260 measured 111 decimals as agreed. - VII. That Plots 1255 and 1256 measured 22 decimals each. - VIII. That the 1st Respondent in contempt of the terms of the consent judgment, with the help and active participation of the 2nd Respondent stealthily transferred all the land comprised in Kyadondo Block 250 Plots 1255, 1256 and 1260 from the name of the Applicant into that of the 1st Respondent and subsequently into the name of a 3rd 50 party, without the knowledge or consent of the Applicant or the beneficiaries to wit; Richard Ssimbwa and Jennifer Nanziri. - IX. That the 2 nd Respondent, a party to Miscellaneous Cause No. 317 of 2020 was privy to the consent judgment / decree and thus knowingly / deliberately aided and abetted the 1 55 st Respondent in his grand scheme to fraudulently transfer the afore-described land. - X. That the Respondents continue to contemptuously disregard the terms of the decree of court with impunity. - XI. That the Applicant and the beneficiaries of the estate of the late Gaaga Kayemba Joseph have suffered great loss and damage as a result of the Respondents' contemptuous 60 conduct. - XII. That it is fair and equitable that orders sought by the Applicant herein be granted against the Respondents.

# XIII. That the orders sought are necessary in ensuring that the orders of this honourable court are respected.

The 1 st Respondent filed his affidavit in reply opposing this application while the 2 65 nd Respondent did not file its reply.

### Back ground to the application.

The brief background to this application is that on the 5 th March, 2021, a consent judgment was entered into by the parties to this application where it was agreed that the Applicant would 70 subdivide the land comprised in Kyadondo Block 250 Plot 202 at Bunga, survey off and hand over an unencumbered title for land measuring 111 decimals to the 1st Respondent. There were also 22 decimals that belonged to Ssimbwa Richard and Jennifer Nanziri. The 1 st Respondent was to negotiate with Ssimbwa Richard and Jennifer Nanziri for the 22 decimals so that he pays for their interest.

75 The Applicant subdivided the land into 13 plots among which were Plots 1255, 1256 and 1260 measuring 111 decimals for plot 1255 and 11 decimals each for plots 1256 and 1260. It is the Applicant's claim that the 1st Respondent in contempt of the terms of the consent judgment and with the help and active participation of the 2nd Respondent transferred all the land comprised in the Kyadondo Block 250 Plots 1255, 1256 and 1260 from the name of the Applicant into that of the 1 80 st Respondent and thereafter into the names of Pan African Property Services Management Ltd, a 3rd party, without the knowledge or consent of the Applicant or Richard

Legal representation

85 Learned Counsel Rita Ssendege Nsubuga represented the Applicant while Isaac Walukagga was for the 1 st Respondent. Written submissions have been filed by the parties as directed by court except the 2nd Respondent who did not also file its affidavit in reply.

Ssimbwa and Jennifer Nanziri, who are the beneficiaries, hence this application.

### Issues raised for trial are: -

1. Whether the Respondents are in contempt of court

#### Preliminary Point.

Counsel for the Applicant raised a preliminary point of law that the 1 st Respondent's affidavit in reply contravenes Order 6 rules 8 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules in that it is evasive, consists of bare denials, is intentionally misleading and argumentative.

95 He submitted that under paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of the application, the Applicant contends that the parties specifically agreed that the 1st Respondent would negotiate with Richard Ssimbwa and Jennifer Nanziri, to pay for the 22 decimals that formed part of the land comprised in Kyadondo Block 250 Plot 202. That in the affidavit in reply, the 1st Respondent makes no specific answer to this fact and yet he admits that all the land measuring 133 decimals 100 was transferred into his name.

Counsel further submitted that under paragraphs 3 (vi) of the affidavit in reply, the 1st Respondent only alludes to his obligation to hand over vacant possession, which he has not also done, but makes no response to the obligation to negotiate and pay for the 22 decimals. That in paragraph 3 (ix) of the affidavit in reply, the 1st Respondent blames the Applicant but provides 105 no answer on how he transferred the land into his names and that of Pan African Property Services Management Limited, without payment of the consideration for the same as clearly stated in the consent decree.

Counsel submitted that it is not sufficient to generally deny the allegations in a statement of claim. That a party ought to clearly state how much of an opponent's case he disputes and how. 110 That the affidavit in reply offends the law and should be struck out. He relied on the case of MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd –v- MacDowell Limited, Miscellaneous Application No. 825 of 2018 arising from Civil Suit No. 723 of 2018, where it was held that Order 30 of the CPR empowers court to order any pleadings in defence to be struck out on the ground that it discloses no reasonable answer or where the defence is shown to be frivolous or vexatious. 115 He prayed that the Affidavit in reply be struck out for not disclosing a reasonable answer or defence under Order 6 rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

#### 1st Respondent's submission

In reply, Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the Affidavit in Reply filed by the 1st

- Respondent addresses with specificity all the allegations that the Applicant raised in his 120 Application. He contended that Paragraphs 3 (i) — $(x)$ of the Affidavit in Reply specifically set out the 1st Respondent's case. That it is averred in these paragraphs that the Applicant and the Respondents executed a Consent Judgment wherein each of the parties had specific obligations. That under Paragraphs 3 (iv) and (vi), the 1st Respondent specifically states that the only obligation that he had under the consent judgment was handing over physical possession of the 125 residue of plot 202, which he complied with. That the Applicant's complaint that the 1st Respondent does not specifically respond to the allegation that he failed to have negotiations with Richard Ssimbwa and Jane Nanziri to pay for the 22 Decimals that formed part of plot 202 has no legal basis. - Counsel further submitted that the $1^{st}$ Respondent expressly avers in paragraph 3 (x) of the 130 Affidavit that the Applicant was enjoined to subdivide plot 202 and pass on the different plots to the respective owners including Richard Ssimbwa and Jane Nanziri that were entitled to the 22 Decimals as residue and yet there is no affidavit by Richard Ssimbwa to show that the 1st Respondent did not negotiate with him for the 22 Decimals in issue or that he has not been paid by the 1st Respondent. That in any event, if at all Jane Nanziri alleges, which is denied that 135 she was not paid by the 1st Respondent for the 22 Decimals stated in paragraph 6 of the Consent -Judgment, she is at liberty to commence execution proceedings against the 1st Respondent to recover her dues.

Counsel averred that the case of *MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd –v- MacDowell Ltd* that the Applicant relies on is distinguishable as it relates to a case where the Defendant makes no 140 reasonable answer to the allegations raised or the defence is shown to be frivolous and vexatious, but that in this case, the Affidavit in Reply sufficiently addresses the issues raised in the application by the Applicant. That the Applicant's claim is sufficiently rebutted by the 1st Respondent who sets out a defence that he purchased property from the Estate of Kayemba Gaaga and that the Applicant would transfer the property he purchased into his favour and that 145 he was enjoined to pay for the property he purchased and return property that was not part of what he had purchased. Counsel prayed that this preliminary point of law be over ruled so that the application is heard on its merits.

#### Analysis

#### 150 Order 6 rule 8 of the CPR provides that: -

"It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his or her written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the statement of claim, or for the plaintiff in his or her written statement in reply to deny generally the grounds alleged in a defence by way of counterclaim, but each party must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he or she does not admit the truth, 155 except damages."

#### Under Order 6 rule 10 of the CPR, it is stated as follows -

#### Evasive denial

When a party in any pleading denies an allegation of fact in the previous pleading of the opposite party, he or she must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if

160 it is alleged that he or she received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he or she received that particular amount, but he or she must deny that he or she received that sum or any part of it, or else set out how much he or she received. If the allegation is made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances.

#### Further, order 8 rule 3 of the rules stipulates that;

165 "every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the opposite party, shall be taken to be admitted, except as against a person under disability; but the court may in its discretion require any facts so admitted to be proved otherwise than by that admission."

In the case of Nelson Kawalya –v- Sebanakita Hamis, Misc. Application 1534 of 2020 court held 170 that: -

"every statement of claim must be specifically dealt with in the defence, however, it is also important to note that under order 8 rule 3 of the CPR, an allegation of fact in a plaint which is not specifically denied is taken as admitted. Court however remains with some discretion under that rule to require any facts so admitted to be proved otherwise than by that admission.

- 175 Secondly, where admission of facts is made, a judgment on admission may, upon application by a party be entered at any stage of the suit. For court to enter such judgment, the admission has to be clear and unambiguous, stating precisely what is being admitted. The respondent in this case denies some of the admissions purportedly made by him…Evasive denial by a defendant and consequently his/her admission of some facts may not on their own operate to - 180 justify the striking out of the entire defence, especially where there is no rejoinder to the defence, as happened to be the case in this matter. Where court remains in doubt of certain facts, order 8 rule 3 of the CPR comes into play to exercise its discretion to leave the matters for trial."

I have looked at the 1st Respondent's affidavit in reply and the application. The Applicant alleges that the Respondents are in contempt of court orders for not complying with the provisions of paragraph 7 of the consent judgement. The 1 185 st Respondent in paragraph 3 (v) refers to paragraph 7 of the consent judgement and in paragraph 3(vi) of his affidavit in reply, he states that his obligation under the said consent order was to hand over physical possession of the residue of plot 202 to the Applicant which he did. I find that the 1 st Respondent's answer is not evasive as he specifically responds to paragraph 7 of the consent judgement which he is accused to have 190 disregarded and then makes a reply in the following paragraph. Therefore, I find no merit in the preliminary objection raised by counsel for the Applicant and do hereby overrule it and

# Issue 1. Whether the Respondents are in contempt of court.

proceed to analyse submissions on issues raised on the merits.

#### Applicant's submissions.

195 Counsel for the Applicant cited Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary, where contempt of court is defined as conduct which interferes with the administration of justice or impedes or prevents the course of justice; and relied on the case of Uganda Super League –v- Attorney General, Constitutional Application No.73 of 2013.

Counsel submitted that the power to punish for contempt of court is a special jurisdiction which 200 is inherent in all courts for the protection of the public interest in the proper administration of justice, as observed by Lord Atkin in Andre Paul Terence Ambar Appeal No. 46 of 1935 –v- the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago) [19361 1 All ER 704, [19361 AC 322. - 205 He referred this court to the case of Hon Sitenda Sebalu –v- Secretary General of the East African Community Ref: No. 8/2012, where it was noted that the position of the law is that for contempt of court to be found, the following principles have to be established: - a) Existence of a lawful order. - b) Potential contemnor's knowledge of the order. - 210 c) Potential contemnor's failure to comply, that is, disobedience of the order.

On the ground of existence of a lawful order, counsel relied on annexure "A" to the Notice of Motion, which is a consent judgment / decree in MC No. 317 of 2020 dated 5th March, 2021. On the ground of potential contemnor's knowledge of the order, Counsel submitted that the general principle is that a person cannot be held in contempt without knowledge of the court 215 order. That 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. That it is not for that party to choose whether or not to comply with such order in its entirety or part of it, the order must be complied with, in totality. Counsel explained that the Respondent in paragraph 3 (iv) of his affidavit in reply confirms that 220 he entered into a consent order.

On the 3rd ground of the potential contemnor's failure to comply/ disobedience of the order,

Counsel relied on Paragraphs 3-6 of the consent judgment / decree, where it was provided among others that the Applicant shall negotiate with Richard Ssimbwa and Jennifer Nanziri for the payment of the remaining 22 decimals which is part of their share in the estate of the late

225 Joseph Kayemba Gaaga and; a separate certificate of title shall be created for their benefit. That the 1 st Respondent neither negotiated nor compensated Richard Ssimbwa and Jennifer Nanziri for the 22 decimals.

Counsel also relied on Paragraph 4.1 of the Police report where the 2nd Respondent is held vicariously liable for the sale. He cited the case of The Procter & Gamble Company –v- Kyole

230 James Mutisho & 2 Ors, HCT 00 CC 135/2012, where court stated that if a party has a challenge with a court order, he should apply to court to have it set aside instead of disobeying it. He prayed that this court be pleased to punish the Respondents for disobedience of lawful orders.

## 1st Respondent's submission

In reply, counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the 1st Respondent's only obligation created in Clause 6 was to negotiate with Richard Ssimbwa and Jennifer Nanziri for the payment of the remaining 22 Decimals. That in the event that the 1st Respondent failed to negotiate for the payment, it would not be an issue for contempt but execution proceedings.

- That the duty to transfer this property was with the Applicant and that the Applicant indeed transferred the property to him. That Ssimbwa did not depone any Affidavit to prove that the 1st Respondent did not negotiate with him for the payment of the 22 decimals. - Counsel submitted that the allegation that the 1st Respondent transferred the land into his names against the letter and spirit of the Consent Judgment is unfounded. That Clause 6 provided for 245 negotiation between the 1st Respondent, Richard Ssimbwa and Jennifer Nanziri which is executory and there was no violation of this clause by the 1st Respondent. - He relied on the case of *David Onen & Others -v- Ocan Otto & Others Misc. Application No. 131 of 2019 (Unreported) at p. 5* where Justice Stephen Mubiru held inter alia that; - "Civil contempt is a strict liability violation; all that must be proved is that the order was served 250 on the respondent, and that a prohibited action (or a failure to carry out an order) occurred. Once the applicant has proved noncompliance with the court's order, by showing the existence of the order and the respondent's noncompliance, the burden then shifts, and the potential contemnor must prove inability to comply or justifiable cause. The purpose of a civil action for contempt is to ensure the respondent's compliance for the benefit of the applicant." - 255 Counsel further contended that the Learned Judge further addressed his mind to service of the Order in issue and stated at p.6 thus;

"One of the key requirements in proceedings for contempt of court is notice of the existence of a clear and unambiguous court order. The law is that no order requiring a person to do or

- abstain from doing an act may be enforced by contempt unless a copy of the order has been 260 served personally on him or her (see Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v. Secretary General of the East African *Community Ref No. 8 of 2012 (EACJ) and Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and another v. Commissioner* General Uganda Revenue Authority H. C. Misc. Application No. 42 of 2010); and there must be prominently displayed on the front of the copy of an order served, a warning to the person on - whom the copy is served that disobedience to the order would be a contempt of court 265

Page 9 of 14

punishable by imprisonment, or (in the case of an order requiring a body corporate to do or abstain from doing an act) punishable by attachment of the assets of the body corporate and by imprisonment of any individual responsible"

Counsel submitted that in this case, the 1st Respondent's negotiations with Ssimbwa and Nanziri 270 could not be subject to contempt proceedings. He relied on the case of Andrew Kilama Lajul – v- Uganda Coffee Development Authority and others Misc. Application No. 324 of 2022 (Unreported), where the Applicant filed an application for contempt orders on the basis that the Respondent had failed to place the Applicant on appraisal as ordered. The court noted that;

"In my view contempt of court is not an appropriate procedure since the court orders were very clear and the court could not in any way direct the 1 275 st Respondent on how to run its business"

Counsel then explained that this being a negotiation, the Court may not be able to direct the 1st Respondent on how to negotiate with the parties involved. That if at all the parties concerned feel aggrieved, they are at liberty to file a suit against the 1st Respondent rather than using contempt as a mode of enforcing a judgment.

280 That as noted in the case of David Onen & Others -v- Otto Ocan & Others (Supra), contempt proceedings cannot be used as a mode of enforcing judgment. He prayed that this issue is answered not in the affirmative.

## Analysis

Black's law Dictionary, 10th Edition, at page 385 defines Contempt of court as Conduct that 285 defies the Authority or dignity of a court. It goes on to provide that because such conduct interferes with the administration of justice, it is punishable usually by a fine or imprisonment. In the case of Barbara Nambi –v- Raymond Lwanga EMA No. 1897 of 2016, Court noted that; "Contempt of court consists of conduct which interferes with the administration of justice or impedes or perverts the course of justice…… Civil contempt consists of a failure to comply with 290 a judgment or order of a court or breach of an undertaking of court.

In the case of Hon. Sitenda Sebalu –v- The Secretary General of the East African Community, Ref No. 8 of 2012 at page 19, the East African Court of Justice, while citing the 4th Edition of Halsbury's Laws of England, page 284 paragraph 458, noted that;

"it is a civil contempt to refuse or neglect to do an act required by a judgment or order of the

295 court within the time specified in that judgment, or to disobey a judgment or order requiring a person to abstain from doing a specific act."

The court went on to note that to prove contempt, the complainant must prove the four elements of contempt, namely;

1)The existence of a lawful order

300 2) The potential contemnor's knowledge of the order 3) The potential contemnor's ability to comply; and 4) The potential contemnor's failure to comply.

In this case, the 1st requirement of existence of a lawful order is not in dispute.

The 2nd ground of the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order is also not in dispute. All 305 parties to this suit signed on the consent judgement/order.

- Paragraph 6 of the consent decree/order required the 1st Respondent to negotiate with Richard Ssimbwa and Jennifer Nanziri for payment of the 22 decimals, this being their share in the estate of the late Gaaga. The alleged contempt is that the 1st Respondent did not negotiate with the said beneficiaries and he did not pay them for their plots comprised in Block 250 plot 1255 and - plot 1256. That he instead connived with the 2 310 nd Respondent and stealthily transferred the land from the names of the Applicant into his (1st Respondent's) names and then to Panafrica Property Services Limited, a 3rd party. This is also stated in the Police report under paragraph 3.3 on Findings.

Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the consent order requiring the 1st Respondent to negotiate with the two

beneficiaries, Richard Ssimbwa and Jennifer Nanziri provided that the 1 315 st Respondent was to negotiate with them for the payment of the remaining 22 decimals. Under Paragraph 7, all documents for the transfer of the land were to be handed over to the 1st Respondent after he had handed over physical possession of the remaining land to the Applicant (Kitaabu). The 1st Respondent admits this in paragraph 6 of his affidavit in reply. Paragraph 3.3 of the Police

320 finding is that;

"it was established that one Kayongo Moses used one duly signed transferred form for land comprised in Kyaddondo Block 250 Plot 1262 which he had purchased from the Administrator Kataabu Simon and added more plots 1255, 1260 and 1256 and finally got registered on all without getting consent from the concerned parties"

The Police finding is dated 20th December, 2021 and the consent order is dated 5 325 th March, 2021. This means that when the 1st Respondent executed the transfer into his names and to PanAfrican Property Services Limited, he had signed and was aware of the court order. I find that there was mala fide conduct by the 1st Respondent when he used a duly signed transfer form in respect of one piece of land to add plots 1255, 1260 and 1256 and he then transferred the land into his names and subsequently to a 3rd 330 party in total disregard of the consent judgement.

In Prof. Frederick Sempebwa and others –v- A. G Civil Application No.5 of 2019, the Supreme court while relying on the authority from the supreme court of S. Africa in Fackie –V- CC 11 systems (pty) Ltd [2006] SCA 54 (RSA), noted that;

a) -

335 b) -

c) -

- d) But once the Applicant has proved the order, service or notice and noncompliance, the Respondent bears an evidential burden in relation to wilfulness and mala fides; should the Respondent fail to advance evidence that establishes a reasonable doubt as to 340 whether noncompliance was wilful and mala fide, contempt will have been established beyond reasonable doubt - e) A declaratory and other appropriate remedies remain available to a civil Applicant or proof on a balance of probabilities. - In this case, the 1st Respondent has not availed any evidence to show why he failed to comply 345 with the consent court order as was required of him. There is no evidence that he negotiated with Ssimbwa Richard and Jennifer Nanziri for payment of the pieces. There is even no evidence that he paid for the pieces (this is confirmed in paragraph 9 of Nanziri's affidavit in support of the application). Therefore, I find that the Applicant has established a case of contempt against the 1st Respondent. - In regard to the 2nd Respondent, I find that the evidence presented is not enough to find the 2nd 350 Respondent liable for contempt of court because it is not clear whether the 2nd Respondent's officer who signed the consent on behalf of the 2nd Respondent in court is the same officer who executed the transfer of title into the names of the 1st Respondent and then to the 3rd Party; or that the officer who executed the transfer was aware of the court order.

## Remedies

In the case of Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another -v- Edward Musisi, MA No.158 of 2010, at page 11, court noted that;

"The principle of law is that the whole purpose of litigation as a process of judicial 360 administration is lost if orders issued by Court through its set judicial process, in the normal functioning of the Courts; are not complied with in full by those targeted and /or called upon to give due compliance."

In Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. 9(1) at paragraph 492, cited in Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd –v-Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority, MA No.0042 of 2010, it is stated that: -

- 365 "Civil contempt is punishable by way of committal or by way of sequestration. The effect of the writ of sequestration is to place, for a temporary period, the property of the contemnor into the hands of sequestrators, who manage the property and receive rent and profits. Civil contempt may also be punished by a fine, or an injunction may be granted against the contemnor." - 370 In Re Contempt of Dougherty 429, Michigan 81, 97 and (1987), cited in the case of Barbra Nambi –v-Raymond Lwanga, MA No. 213 of 2017, court noted that;

"imprisonment for civil contempt is properly ordered where the Defendant has refused to do an affirmative act by the provisions of an order, which either in form or substance was 375 mandatory in character…if the contempt consists in refusal of a party to do something which he is ordered to do for the benefit and advantage of the opposite party…. The Contemnor stands to be committed until he complies with the order. The order in such a case is not a punishment but is coercive to compel the Contemnor to act in accordance with the order of court."

- 380 In this case, the Applicant made the following prayers; - 1. An order that the 1st Respondent be committed to civil prison for contempt of court - 2. An order directing the Respondents jointly and or severally to pay the Applicants damages and compensation to the tune of 500,000,000/- in order to purge the contempt - 3. An order directing the Respondents to pay a fine deemed fit by this court as a sanction 385 for their contemptuous conduct. - 4. Costs of this application

Page **13** of **14** In Attorney General –v- Male Mabirizi MA No. 843 of 2021, Musa Ssekaana, J, noted that;

"in determining the appropriate sanction, the Court should consider that the objective of the offence of contempt of court proceedings is to protect the public interest or confidence in the due administration of justice. This is done by punishing acts or statements which tend to abuse or make a mockery of administration of justice, or which tend to lower the authority of individual Judges or the court."

In *Barbra Nambi –v-Raymond Lwanga, (supra)*, court noted that the rationale behind a fine for contempt is to send out a firm message that "court orders have to be obeyed and to indicate to contemnors that there are consequences for disobedience of court orders. The Applicant had 395 prayed for a fine of 50,000,000/- Court found the amount of 50,000,000/- to be excessive and awarded $2,000,000/-$ .

In this case therefore, I find the following orders appropriate: -

- 1. The 1st Respondent will pay a fine of 5,000,000/- (five million Uganda shillings only) to purge the contempt. This money should be credited on the court account in a period of 14 days from the date of this ruling. Should the 1st Respondent fail to pay in the said period, he should then be committed to civil prison for a period of 4 (four) months. - 2. I decline to award the Applicant damages and compensation of 500,000,000/- (five hundred million Uganda shillings only) as this court has not been guided by the Applicant on how the amount of UGX. 500,000,000/- was arrived at. The Applicant may file a suit for proper determination of the damages that he suffered as a result of the contempt.

3. The 1st Respondent pays costs of this application.

I so order.

Signed, dated and delivered by mail at Kampala on this $7th$ day of July, 2023.

Esta Nambayo JUDGE $7^{th}/7/2023$

415