Precision Consulting Communications v ABC Capital Bank Limited (Miscellaneous Application 2059 of 2023) [2024] UGCA 129 (17 May 2024)

#### 5 **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

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

## **[COMMERCIAL DIVISION]**

## **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2059 OF 2023**

## **PRECISION CONSULTING COMMUNICATIONS:::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT**

## 10 **VERSUS**

**ABC CAPITAL BANK LTD ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONNDENT**

### **BEFORE HON. LADY JUSTICE HARRIET GRACE MAGALA**

#### **RULING**

#### **Background and Introduction**

- On the 12th 15 day of May 2020, the Applicant entered into a memorandum of understanding with M/s EX-Ken (U) Ltd wherein the Parties agreed that the Applicant recommends M/s EX-Ken (U) Ltd to the Ministry of Health of the Government of Uganda for the contract of supply of masks. The Applicant agreed to facilitate the procurement process to enable the M/s EX-Ken (U) Ltd to supply 20 the masks to the Ministry of Health. In return, EX-Ken (U) Ltd was to pay the Applicant a consideration of 15% commission on any payments made by the Government. M/s EX-Ken (U) Ltd delivered five (5) batches of masks for which it was paid a total of UGX. 2,200,800,000/=. The Applicant was entitled to UGX. 320,120,000 as her commission but only received UGX. 70,000,000/=. The - 25 Applicant now demands for the payment of the outstanding balance of UGX. 260,120,000/=.

- 5 The Applicant instituted Civil Suit No. 175 of 2023 and obtained a default judgment against M/s EX-Ken (U) Ltd for the recovery of the sum of UGX. 260,120,000/=. The Applicant applied for and was granted a Garnishee Order Nisi vide Misc. Application No. 917 of 2023. The Respondent was served with the application and hearing dates but she did not attend the hearings. The Garnishee - Order Nisi was heard and granted on the 6th 10 day of July, 2023 and the Garnishee Absolute was heard and granted on the 17th day of August, 2023.

This is an application that was brought by notice of motion under Section 33 of the Judicature Act Cap 13, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 and Order 52 Rule 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules S. I No. 71-1. The Applicant sought for

15 orders that: The Respondent be held in contempt of this Honorable court order vide Misc. Application No. 917 of 2023, general damages, punitive damages and costs.

The grounds of the application are contained in the Affidavit of Kisembo Ronex Tendo, a director in the Applicant company, wherein he stated that:

- 20 1. The Applicant having obtained the garnishee orders, through her lawyers, served the Respondent with the garnishee absolute in respect of Bank Account No. 2000000181 in the name of EX-Ken (U) Ltd, by way of a letter written on the 23rd day of August, 2023; - 2. On the 25th day of August, 2023, the Respondent served the Applicant's lawyers a letter dated the 24th 25 day of August, 2023, stating that UGX. 35,207,230 stood as the available balance on the said account; - 3. The Respondent deducted UGX. 373,750/= as outstanding monthly charges, retained UGX. 100,000/= as the minimum balance to maintain the

- 5 account and remitted UGX. 34,733,480/= to the Applicant as per the bank statement; - 4. The bank statement forwarded to her was selectively made and questionable as it only shows the opening balance as of the 24th day of August, 2023; - 10 5. The Ministry of Health of the Republic of Uganda paid the Judgment Debtor through its said account held with the Respondent, UGX. 1,140,000,000/=; - 6. At the time the Respondent was served with a Garnishee Order Nisi, the judgment debtor still had the funds on the designated account held with 15 the Respondent; - 7. The Respondent made unauthorized deductions from the bank account of the judgment debtor after the order absolute was granted by the court; - 8. As a result of the deductions and transfer of money from the judgment debtor's said account, the Applicant was only paid UGX. 34,733,480/= 20 against the court order; - 9. The Respondent failed to comply with the court order when it deliberately refused to pay the entire decretal sum of UGX. 260,120,000, which actions amounted to contempt of court; and

10. It is in the interest of justice and fairness that this application is granted by 25 the court with the reliefs prayed for.

In opposition, the Respondent filed an affidavit in reply sworn by Ms. Prossy Basemera, the Legal Officer of the Respondent, wherein she stated that:

Page **3** of **19**

- 1. The Respondent was served with a Garnishee Order Nisi on the 2nd 5 day of August, 2023 and a Garnishee Order Absolute on the 23rd day of August, 2023, in respect of the bank account no. 2000000181, in the name of Ex-Ken (U) Ltd (Judgment Debtor) and emanating from a judgment decree in favour of the Applicant in Civil Suit No. 175 of 2023. - 2. The said account had a balance of UGX. 35,207,230.17/= as at 23rd 10 August 2023. - 3. The Respondent had previously placed a debit freeze on this account sometime in July 2023 when information was received that the Shareholders/Directors of the Judgment Debtor had died. - 15 4. Upon receipt of the Garnishee absolute, the Respondent administratively, lifted the debit freeze on the said bank account on the 24th day of August, 2023, for purposes of enabling the Respondent to comply with the Garnishee order absolute. - 5. The Respondent's system automatically applied a total sum of UGX. - 20 373,750/= in settlement of all outstanding monthly charges and applicable excise duty that had accrued, retained UGX. 100,000/= as the minimum account balance for corporate accounts, in accordance with the bank account opening and operational terms and conditions and the Respondent remitted the sum of UGX. 34,733,480/= to the Applicant's counsel in partial 25 fulfillment of the Garnishee Order Absolute. - 6. The Respondent did not have the full sum of money due to the Applicant under the Garnishee Order Absolute as alleged or at all as such amount was not available in the aforementioned bank account as claimed or expected.

- 5 7. The Respondent fully honored and discharged its legal obligations in relation to the Garnishee Order Absolute when it remitted the sum of UGX. 34,733,480/= to the Applicant's counsel on the 24th day of August, 2023, being the only debt that was due to the judgment debtor on account of the banker-customer relationship. - 10 In rejoinder, the Applicant averred that: - 1. It was the responsibility of the Respondent to inform court and bring to the attention of court reasons for non-compliance. - 2. The Respondent served with both the Garnishee Order Nisi and garnishee order absolute but did not appear in court on the said date of 17th August, 15 2023 when the garnishee order absolute was granted. - 3. The bank statement referred to was extracted selectively and questionably to defeat the ends of justice. - 4. The judgment debtor through its account held in the Respondent bank, received money worth UGX. 1,140,000,000/= from the Ministry of Health. - 20 5. The Applicant in its application has elaborately shown the genesis of the funds that were received and when they were received. - 6. If the Respondent was genuine, they would have brought a full bank statement from the time the said funds were received to-date. - 7. A clear bank statement showing when the funds were received to when 25 they were served with the court orders would have clearly disapproved the Applicant's claim.

- 5 8. The Respondent as the garnishee had no legal right whatsoever to make any deductions after the Garnishee Order Nisi was granted by this Honorable court. - 9. The Respondent's deductions were therefore unauthorized, illegal as they were made subsequent to the Garnishee Order Absolute being granted by 10 this honorable court. - 10. The Respondent did not discharge its legal obligations to honor the garnishee order absolute issued by this honorable court.

## **Appearance and representation**

During the hearing on the 28th day of November, 2023, the Applicant was

- 15 represented by Counsel Richard Rugambwa of M/s R. Mackay Advocates together with the Applicant's representative Mr. Augustine Kateeba. The Respondent was represented by Counsel Patience Akampulira of M/s Kampala Associated Advocates together with the Respondent's representative Ms. Prossy Basemera, the Legal Officer. The learned Counsel for the parties made oral submissions. - 20 **Issues for determination** - **1. Whether the Respondent is in contempt of court orders** - **2. What remedies are available for the parties?**

## **Determination**

**Issue 1: Whether the Respondent is in contempt of court orders?**

## 25 **Applicant's submissions**

Counsel submitted that civil contempt has been defined by the Black's Law Dictionary 12th Edition as failure to obey a court order that was issued for another

Page **6** of **19**

- 5 party's benefit. He further submitted that when a court gives orders the same ought to be respected, implemented, should take effect and no one should interfere with a court order. Counsel relied on the case of *Prof. Fredrick Ssempebwa & 2Ors V AG SCCA No.05 of 2019* that laid down principles for one to be held for civil contempt which include: - 10 1. That an order was issued by Court; - 2. That the order was served/brought to the attention of the alleged respondent; - 3. That there was non-compliance of the order; and - 4. That the non-compliance was willful and mala fide. - 15 Counsel further submitted that there was no contention for the first three (3) ingredients as stated in the Affidavit in support. On the issue of non-compliance, it was the submission of the Applicant that the Respondent willfully refused to comply with the same order. That pursuant to **Annexure "F"** attached on the Affidavit in support, the Respondent received different sums of money from the - 20 Ministry of Health and specifically they received UGX. 1,148,000,000. That according to the Affidavit in reply, the Respondent admits that the money had been received by the Judgment Debtor, at that time, the directors of the judgment debtor and that money had not been withdrawn by them. Counsel further submitted that the Respondent did not dispute the fact that they were - served on the 2nd 25 day of August, 2023 with the Garnishee Order Nisi to attend the hearing on the 17th day of August, 2023, which they still did not attend and the garnishee absolute was granted.

- 5 Counsel relied on the case of *Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Anor vs. Edward Musisi CAMA No. 158 of 2010 at page 11,* to state that the Respondent had a duty to move court then and inform it if there were any reasons that would render them non-compliant with the said order that had been served onto them. That the Respondent and Judgment Debtor did not attend court or inform court of any 10 reason that would hinder compliance with the same, thus their non-attendance was an indication that they would comply with the order. It was the submission of the Applicant that they were surprised when the Respondent transferred UGX. 34,733,480/= to their lawyers, R. Mackay Advocates on the 24th day of August, 2023. That they were further surprised by the bank statement attached to the - letter addressed to the Applicant's lawyers, specifying transactions from the 24th 15 day of August, 2023 and a few other deductions that were made on the same day.

Counsel submitted that the bank statement attached on the Affidavit in reply as **Annexure "A"** was selectively made and appears questionable to defeat justice, because there is a lapse between (21-07-21 to 24-08-23) when the money was

20 received as per **Annexure "F".** Counsel relied on the decision in *Peter Allan Musoke vs. Alibhai Hassanali Gulamali & Anor and Akber Jetha HC Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 2022* to state that the statement attached was selective, questionable and intended to defeat justice. That if the Respondent wanted to comply, she should have provided a full bank statement when money received as shown in the

25 Application and when it was deducted. That **annexure "A"** shows that the Respondent made other deductions even upon receiving the court order and only transferred money less the deductions. That it was the Applicant's submission that those deductions were illegal as they were made subsequent to the garnishee order absolute and prayer that this court finds Respondent is in

Page **8** of **19**

5 contempt of the court orders and grants the remedies sought for in the application.

On the issue of willful non-compliance, the Applicant's submitted that the Respondent's disobedience of the court order was willful/ malafide and no reason was given by the Respondent for its failure to comply with the garnishee absolute 10 nisi.

#### **Respondent's submissions**

Counsel for the Respondent submitted that according to paragraphs 3,4,7, 8, 9 &10 of the Affidavit in reply, the Respondent placed a debit freeze on the judgment debtor's account having received information of the death of her

- shareholders, at the time when they received the Garnishee Order Nisi on the 2nd 15 day of August, 2023. That as on the 2nd day of August, 2023, the Respondent only held UGX. 35,207,230/= on the Judgment Debtor's account and it is the said amount that was duly disbursed on the 24th day of August, 2023 in compliance with the Garnishee Order Absolute to the Applicant's counsel under Order 23 - 20 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Counsel further relied on the case of *China Henan International Cooperation Co. Ltd vs. Justus Kyabahwa CACA No. 100 of 2021 page 10: para 10, page 11: para15-20* and submitted that the Respondent duly complied with the Garnishee Order Nisi by activating the judgment debtor's bank account for purposes of complying with the subsequent order absolute. That 25 accordingly the fund available to the Respondent were disbursed to the Applicant with the exception of charges as per paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Affidavit in reply - that had accrued at that time.

5 Counsel further submitted that the Respondent did not selectively pick out details in the bank statement. That this is on the basis that the Respondent only freezes transactions on a bank account upon receipt of the order nisi which was complied with. The Respondent submitted that any other transactions and money received as per **Annexure "F"** are outside the period of garnishee and the funds received 10 pre-garnishee proceedings and any transactions on the account are protected by the duty of confidentiality between the bank and customer. That the bank statement availed was well within the period of the garnishee proceedings.

That the judgment debtor's account was inactive after the death of the directors and the bank system did not collect monthly charges and excise duty. That the 15 judgment debtor took an administrative decision to freeze their account and that is why the date of 24th August, 2023 had many debits. That the facts in case of *Peter Allan Musoke vs. Alibhai Hassanali Gulamali & Anor and Akber Jetha (supra)* relied on by counsel or the Applicant were distinguishable from the instant facts since this case is premised on the fact that the bank statement adduced as evidence 20 that the Respondent is within the period of the garnishee proceedings. That, Counsel for the Applicant did not clearly mention when exactly Garnishee Order Nisi and absolute were served and received in the case he cited. That in conclusion, the Respondent submitted that the application does not meet and satisfy the ingredients of contempt of court, and the same should be dismissed.

#### 25 **Applicant's submissions in rejoinder**

Counsel submitted that counsel for the Respondent cited the authority of *China Henan International Cooperation Co. Ltd vs. Justus Kyabahwa (supra)* to differentiate between a Garnishee Nisi and Absolute. That it was their prayer that - 5 as rightly stated in that case, the attached account only freezes till made absolute or discharged. That when the Respondent was served with an Order Nisi on the 2 nd day of August, 2023, they should have frozen the account and made payments when absolute was served on the 23rd day of August. That they still reiterate their earlier submissions that the deductions made thereafter were illegal. - 10 That counsel for the Respondent stated that the bank statement was not selective but did not attach the statement of when funds were received to when they allege the account was frozen. Counsel still submitted and concluded that the Respondent did not comply with the court; the non-compliance was willful because the Respondent did not come with clean hands. Counsel further - 15 submitted that the Respondent was intending to defeat justice and prayed that her prayers should be granted.

### **Decision**

**Black's law dictionary 9th Edition at page 360**, defines civil contempt as:

*"The failure to obey a court order that was issued for another party's benefit.* 20 *A civil contempt proceeding is coercive or remedial in nature. The usual sanction is to confine the contemnor until he or she complies with the court order. The act (or failure to act) complained of must be within the defendant's power to perform, and the contempt order must state how the contempt may be purged. Imprisonment for civil contempt is indefinite and for a term that* 25 *lasts until the defendant complies with the decree."*

The Supreme Court of Uganda in the case of *Prof. Fredrick E. Ssempebwa & 2 Ors vs. Attorney General SCCA No. 05 of 2019 at page 21*, clarified the purpose of civil contempt and stated that civil contempt is well embedded under **Article 126(1) of**

- 5 **the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda** wherein judicial power shall be exercised by the courts. Therefore, it follows that when courts give orders in the exercise of their judicial power, those orders must be respected, implemented and take effect pursuant to **Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda of 1995.** - 10 The Supreme Court in the above case on page 22, relied on the decision in the South African Supreme Court case of *Fakie vs. CC11 Systems (pty) Ltd [2006] SCA54 (RSA),* to lay down some ground rules of civil contempt which are:

*"(a) The civil contempt procedure is a valuable and important mechanism for securing compliance with court orders, and survives constitutional* 15 *scrutiny in the form of a motion court application adapted to constitutional requirements.*

> *(b) The respondent in such proceedings is not an 'accused person' but is entitled to analogous protections as are appropriate to motion proceedings.*

*(c) In particular, the Applicant must prove the requisites of contempt (the* 20 *order; service or notice; non-compliance; and willfulness and mala fides) beyond reasonable doubt.*

*(d) But once the Applicant has proved the order, service or notice, and noncompliance, the respondent bears an evidential burden in relation to willfulness and mala fides: should the respondent fail to advance evidence* 25 *that established a reasonable doubt as to whether non-compliance was willful and mala fide, contempt will have been established beyond reasonable doubt.*

5 *(e) A declaratory and other appropriate remedies remain available to a civil applicant on proof on a balance of probabilities."*

The Applicant's counsel relied on the case of *Prof. Fredrick E. Ssempebwa & 2 Ors vs. Attorney General at page 23 (supra)* to submit on the principles the Applicant must prove to hold the Respondent in contempt of the court garnishee orders.

- 10 Counsel submitted that for one to be held in civil contempt the following ought to be proved: - 1. That an order was issued by Court; - 2. That the order was served/brought to the attention of the alleged respondent; - 15 3. That there was non-compliance of the order; and - 4. That the non-compliance was willful and mala fide.

Both parties conceded on the first two (2) elements and submitted on the last two elements. I will determine both submissions and evidence on the last two elements. The Supreme Court in the case of *Fakie vs. CC11 Systems (pty) Ltd [2006]*

20 *SCA54 (RSA),* observed that the first three elements must be proved on the balance of probabilities, and the fourth element must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

### **Non-compliance of the order**

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Respondent was indeed served with both the Garnishee Order Nisi and Garnishee Order Absolute, ordering the

25 Respondent to deposit the decretal sum of Ugx. 260,120,000/= and Ugx. 21,880,000/= as taxed costs of the suit as of the 22nd day of August, 2023. Counsel further submitted that the Respondent on the 24th day of August, 2023, remitted only Ushs. 34,733,480/=, therefore, the Respondent failed to comply with the

Page **13** of **19**

- 5 court orders, thus her non-compliance. The Respondent submitted that the judgment debtor had only Ugx. 35,207,230/= as at 24th August 2023, therefore, by remitting Ugx. 34,733,480/= less monthly excise duty charges and the Ushs. 100,000/= retained to maintain the account, she complied with the court orders. Having carefully perused the Garnishee Order Absolute, this court before Her - 10 Worship Dorothy Kyampaire, Assistant Registrar gave the following orders:

**"(a) The total Decretal sum of Ushs. 260,120,000/= (Uganda Shillings Two Hundred Sixty Million One Hundred Twenty Thousand Shillings Only) be attached and deposited on Account Number 0200074074 R. Mackay Advocates held at Housing Finance Bank Nakasero Branch.**

- 15 **(b) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT; The said Garnishee do forth pay to the Decree Holder the total Decretal Sum of Ushs. 21,880,000/= (Uganda Shillings Twenty-One Million Eight Hundred and Eighty Thousand Only) as taxed costs of the suit and that in default thereof, execution shall issue for the same against the Garnishee in contempt."** - 20 According to **paragraph 4 of the Affidavit in reply,** the Respondent was duly served with the Garnishee Order Absolute and therefore, aware of the exact amount of sums to be remitted to the Applicant on the 23rd day of August, 2023, but has only remitted Ugx. 34,733,480/=. The Judgment Debtor's account only held Ugx. 35,207,230/= as at 24th August 2023. - 25 In the case of *ABSA Bank Uganda Limited vs. Chukwu Ejiofor & Anor HCCA No. 231 of 2022***, at page 16, Hon. Justice Mubiru Stephen** held that:

Page **14** of **19**

- 5 *"In other words, a garnishee order is in substance, not an order to pay a debt, but an order on the third party to hand over something in their hands belonging to the judgment debtor to the judgment creditor. Before imposing civil contempt sanctions based upon the violation of a court order, a court must conclude that:* - 10 *(1) the underlying order violated was valid and lawful;* - *(2) the underlying order was clear, definite, and unambiguous; and*

*(3) the contemnor had the ability to comply with the underlying order.*

A reading of the bank statement shows that as at 21st July 2021, the bank balance was Ugx. 35,207,230/=. The statement shows that there was no activity on the account since 21st July 2021. The account only became active on the 24th 15 August 2023(after receipt of the Order Absolute) and the deductions made were account maintenance fees of Ugx. 12,500/= and excise duty of Ugx. 1875. Because there was no activity on the account between 21st July 2021 and 24th August 2023 does not mean that the statement is suspect or that the Respondent was selective in 20 what information was provided both to court and the Applicant. The Respondent submitted that the Directors/Shareholders of M/s Ex-Ken(U) Ltd passed on and upon the Respondent receiving that information applied an administrative freeze on the account. The Directors, Nizar Ali and Ashraf Rubina Ahmed according to the death certificates passed away on the 22nd June 2021 and 20th May 2021

25 respectively. It was further submitted for the Respondent that once she received the Garnishee Absolute, it could only be honored after the account maintenance fees were deducted because the account was dormant for a period of two years.

5 The bank account in question was already frozen by the time the Oder Nisi was served onto the bank. In addition, the statement availed to court covers the period 14th July 2021 to the 30th September 2023. This covers the Garnishee period of 2nd August 2023 to 23rd August 2023. This in my view is in line with the decision in the case of *China Henan International Cooperation Co. Ltd vs. Justus*

10 *Kyabahwa CACA No. 100 of 2021 at page 11 of 14* where the court found that:

*"As soon as the garnishee order nisi is served on the bank, it operates as an injunction. It prevents the bank from paying the money to its customer until the garnishee order is made absolute, or is discharged, that is, creates a charge in favour of the judgment creditor".*

- 15 In my considered opinion, the Respondent froze the sum that the Judgment Debtor held on her account. The Applicant's submission that the Ugx. 1,140,000,000/= deposited by the Ministry of Health was supposed to be on the same account, but was selectively not shown on the bank statement, remains a fact outside the garnishee proceedings and period. If the Respondent availed information on their 20 client's bank account outside the garnishee period would amount to breach of confidentiality. The only sum of money on the judgment debtor's account that was attachable as at 24th August, 2023 was Ugx. 35,207,230/=. The Respondent therefore remitted what the judgment debtor held on its account less the - 25 I, therefore find that the applicant has not proved this element on a balance of probabilities and as such the Respondent complied with the garnishee orders.

administrative fees and required minimum bank balance.

### 5 **Non-compliance being willful and mala fide**

Court has already found that the Respondent complied with the Court Orders. In any event, the Respondent put a freeze on the bank account of M/s Ex-Ken (U) Limited before the Garnishee Nisi was issued and the reasons for the freeze have already been stated above. The Respondent also offered to this court a plausible

- 10 explanation as to why not all the money held with her could not be paid out to the Applicant. That is, the account having been dormant for close to two years had to be activated so that the Applicant could be paid. Outstanding bank account maintenance fees had to be deducted as well as Ugx. 100,000/= as the required minimum bank balance. - 15 The Supreme Court in the case of *Prof. Fredrick E. Ssempebwa & 2 Ors vs. Attorney General (supra) at page 30*, while relying on the decision in *Lourens vs. Premier of the Free State Province and ANOR 95260 [2017] ZASCA 60* held that:

*"Unreasonable non-compliance, provided that it is a bona fide does not constitute contempt. And where, as in this case, an applicant approached a* 20 *court on notice of motion, a dispute of fact as to whether non-compliance was willful and mala fide falls to be determined on the respondent's version; unless the court considers that the respondent's allegations do not raise a real, genuine or bona fide dispute of fact, or are so far-fetched or clearly untenable that the court is justified in rejecting them merely on the paper".*

25 In my opinion, the Respondent's explanations are not far-fetched in light of the facts and evidence given. Indeed, the existence of money that belonged to the judgment debtor was shown as at 24th August, 2023. I find that the Respondent has discharged the evidential burden of showing that she did not act willfully or mala

5 fide in disobedience of the court orders. I therefore find that the Respondent did not act in contempt of the Court Orders. Therefore, this issue is answered in the negative.

## **Issue 2: What remedies are available for the parties?**

The Judgement Debtor is still indebted to the Applicant. Following that the 10 garnishee order absolute has not satisfied the Applicant's decretal sum, the Applicant should explore other means within the law to recover the balance of the money due to her from the Judgement Debtor.

It is a general rule that costs shall follow the event unless the court or Judge shall for good reason otherwise order.

## 15 **Section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act** states that:

*"subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the costs of and incident to all suits shall be in the discretion of the court or judge, and the court or judge shall have full power to determine by whom and out of what property* 20 *and to what extent those costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid".*

5 Having found that the Respondent discharged her obligation in respect of the Granishee Orders, costs of this application are awarded to the Respondent as the successful party.

# **Signed and dated at Kampala this 17th day of May 2024.**

# 10 **Harriet Grace MAGALA**

**Judge**

**Delivered online (ECCMIS) this 24 th day of May 2024.**