Pegasus Technologies Limited v Richard Kisembo and Karumana Safaris Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 127 of 2020) [2025] UGCommC 135 (13 June 2025)

5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.127 OF 2020

10 (ARISING FROM MIS. APPLICATION NO.1109 OF 2019) (ARISING FROM MISC. APPLICATION NO.1108 OF 2019) (ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO.990 OF 2019)

PEGASUS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED…………………. APPLICANT

15 VERSUS

1. RICHARD KISEMBO

2. KARUMUNA SAFARIS LIMITED…………….…. RESPONDENTS

BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE SUSAN ODONGO

RULING

This application is brought by Notice of Motion under Article 128(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda,1995, Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 41 Rules 2 and 3, and Order 52 25 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules (SI 71-1), seeking the following

orders:

- 1. That the respondents be found in contempt of the court order dated 5th October 2019. - 2. That the respondents deliver the motor vehicle registration number UAN - 30 635G to the applicant's premises at Plot 38A, Martyrs Way, Ntinda.

- 3. That the respondents' property be attached and the 1st 5 respondent be committed to prison for a period of six months. - 4. That the respondents pay general damages to the applicants. - 5. That the respondents pay the costs of this application to the applicants.

10 Background

The applicants instituted Civil Suit No. 990 of 2019 against the respondents for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, among other declarations. Subsequently, the applicants filed an application for a temporary injunction on 3 rd December 2019 (Miscellaneous Application No. 1108 of 2019) and an 15 interim injunction (Miscellaneous Application No. 1109 of 2019) against the respondents. The orders sought included detention and preservation of the motor vehicle bearing registration number UAN 635G at the Criminal Investigation Division (CID), Kibuli.

An interim order was granted on 5th December 2019 in the presence of the 20 respondents, who acknowledged service. The court extended this interim order on 19th December 2019 until 14th February 2020, and the respondents were duly notified of the extension. Despite full knowledge of the court orders, the respondents deliberately removed and took possession of the motor vehicle from the CID headquarters at Kibuli. Hence this application for contempt of court 25 orders.


5 Application and supporting affidavit

This application is brought under the provisions cited in the preamble above. The grounds are detailed in the affidavit sworn by Ronald Azairwe in support of the motion. The affidavit states that the applicants filed Civil Suit No. 990 of 2019 and subsequently filed Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 1108 and 1109 of

10 2019 for temporary and interim injunctions, respectively, to detain and preserve the motor vehicle at CID, Kibuli.

That on 5th December 2019, an interim order was granted in the presence of the respondents and duly served on them. On 19th December 2019, the court extended the interim order up to 14th February 2020. The extension was served

15 on the respondents' counsel via WhatsApp at number 078067594, after the counsel informed the applicant's counsel of his physical absence in Kampala and acknowledged receipt.

Despite the existence and knowledge of these court orders, the respondents deliberately removed and took possession of the motor vehicle from CID, 20 Kibuli, in violation of the court's directives.

There is no Affidavit in reply by the respondents on court record.

Representation and Hearing

When this matter came up for hearing on 7th May 2025 and on 4 th June 2025, 25 the applicant was at all times represented by Counsel Kansiime Mukama Taremwa, and the applicant's legal Officer was present in court on the 4th June 2025. Neither the respondents nor their counsels appeared in court. The respondents did not file a reply to the application. There is proof that the


5 respondents were served with hearing notices. Consequently, the applicant sought to proceed exparte and the court granted him leave. The applicant addressed the court by written submissions.

Applicant's Submission

10 Counsel while relying on the case of *Stanbic Bank (Ul Ltd and Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd vs. The Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority HC M. A No.42/ 2010* argued that for court to determine whether there was contempt, there must be existence of a 1awful order, the potential contemnor's knowledge of the order and the potential contemnor's failure to comply (disobedience of the 15 court order).

Counsel submitted that the actions of the respondents of transferring the *Motor vehicle No. UAN 635G* from CID Headquaters, Kibuli were part of the process of undermining and lowering the authority and orders of this Court, as such

20

Issues for determination

contemptuous.

The Applicant raised the following issues for determination; Whether the Respondents are in contempt of court orders, and whether the applicant is entitled to remedies sought*.*

Pursuant to Order 15 rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, I will amend the 2 nd 25 issue as follows:Whether the circumstances of the case necessitate any measures being taken against the respondents.


5 Court's determination

*Issue 1: Whether the Respondents are in contempt of court orders?*

*Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition* defines contempt of court to mean conduct that defies the authority or dignity of court.

The Supreme Court in *Re Ivan Samuel Ssebadduka,* a matter on contempt 10 proceedings arising from Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2020, quoted with approval the case of *Johnson vs. Grant SC 1923 SC 789 at 790* in which Lord President (Clyde) inter alia, explained contempt of court to mean:

*"..... An offence consists in interfering with the administration of the law; in impeding and perverting the course of justice. It is not the dignity of court which is offended - a petty and*

15 *misleading view of the issues involved- it is the fundamental supremacy of the law which is challenged."*

The same Court went on to quote the case of *Morris vs. Crown Office [1970] l ALL ER 7079 at 1087* where Salmon LJ stated the essence or purpose of contempt proceedings. He stated inter alia that*:*

20 *"The sole purpose of proceedings for contempt is to give our courts the power effectively to protect the rights of the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be obstructed or prevented..."*

The primary but not exclusive purpose of the court's contempt powers is to ensure that its orders are fulfilled. Another is to punish conduct in defiance of

25 its orders *(see Munib Masri v. Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL, Consolidated Contractors (Oil and Gas) Company SAL [2011] EWHC 2579 (Comm).*


- 5 According to *Halsbury's Laws of England*, Contempt of Court (Volume 9 (1) Reissue)) 1*"Contempt of Court may be classified as either (1) Criminal Contempt, consisting of words or acts which impede or interfere with the administration of justice, or which create a substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced; or (2) contempt in procedure, otherwise known as civil contempt, consisting of* - 10 *disobedience to the judgment, orders or other process of the Court and involving a private injury."*

Therefore, civil contempt occurs outside the court's close realm. It usually takes the form of disregarding court orders and judgments. This means that civil contempt must be brought to the court's notice; the conduct alleged to constitute

15 the contempt of court. The instant case is one that involves conduct that occurred outside the realm of court. The allegation against the respondents is that they disobeyed the orders of this Court in *H. C. M. A No.1109/2019* delivered on 5th Oct 2019. This, therefore, falls under the classification of civil contempt.

In Florence *Dawaru vs. Angumale Albino & Anor HC MA No. 0096 of 2016*, 20 Mubiru, J stated as follows:

"*However, for contempt that is not committed in the face of court, this kind of contempt is sui generis. It is usually initiated by a litigant who by motion brings to the attention of court conduct believed to be in contempt of court. All contempt proceedings are matters between the court and the alleged contemnor. Any person* 25 *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 contemnor".*


5 Therefore, in the instant application the true parties to these proceedings are the Court on one hand and the respondents, the alleged contemnors on the other.

The power of this Court to determine matters of contempt has its foundation in *Article 28(12)* of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.

In *Kizito v Nsubuga and Ors-SC-Civil-Application No. 25/2021* the Supreme Court 10 set out the pre-conditions that must be satisfied before a court can hold a respondent in contempt. The court stated that to prove contempt, the complainant must prove the four elements of contempt, namely:

- *(a) Existence of a valid order*. Where a valid court order exists, it must be obeyed in totality. A party who chooses to disobey the order without good reason 15 risks being held in contempt. - *(b) The Court order must state clearly and unequivocally what should and should not be done.* The court will be reluctant to punish or condemn an alleged contemnor for an order whose terms are unclear and ambiguous. - *(c) The alleged contemnor must have actual knowledge of the court order.* Common - 20 law leans towards the requirement of personal service or actual knowledge of the existence of the court order. In some instances, knowledge of the court order may be inferred even in cases of willful blindness. - *(d) The alleged contemnor must have intentionally done the act which the order prohibits or intentionally failed to do the act.* - 25 There is need for proof beyond reasonable doubt of the alleged contemnor's deliberate conduct that has the consequence of disobeying the court order in issue. The applicant is however not required to prove that the alleged contemnor intended to bring court into disrepute. Also, where the breach of the order is

 5 unintentional and accidental then the court may exercise the discretion to impose no penalty.

Even where the applicant satisfies all the aforementioned elements required to prove civil contempt, a court entertaining contempt proceedings still possesses the power to decline to make a finding of contempt where the alleged contemnor

10 shows court that he/she acted in good faith and was taking reasonable steps towards compliance with the order.

The facts at hand show that the ruling and orders that the respondents allegedly disobeyed were passed in this Court's ruling in *H. C. M. A No.1109/2019* delivered on 5th Oct 2019. (*See: paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support and Annexure C).* The

15 clarity and unequivocal nature of the said orders remain uncontroverted, as evidenced by the respondents' failure to file any affidavit challenging their interpretation or validity.

It is incontrovertible that the alleged contemnors possessed actual notice of the court's directives. The court record unequivocally confirms that the initial order was pronounced in the presence of both parties on 5 20 th October 2019 *(Annexure C of the affidavit*). Furthermore, the extended order issued on 19th December 2019 was duly served and acknowledged by the respondents via whatsApp (*paragraph 10 and Annexure E*). The absence of any sworn affidavit to these facts constitutes prima facie evidence of the respondents' awareness

25 Whether the conduct of the contemnor was intentional or not, still is not in dispute, reason being that the respondents didn't file any pleadings disputing the same. Therefore, it is clear to this Honorable Court that the acts of the respondents in removing the *Motor vehicle No. UAN 635G* from CID Headquaters, Kibuli were wilful, intentional and planned to block the applicant's


5 rights that were granted in a valid court order. Their conduct displayed a lack of good faith and failure to take reasonable steps to comply with the order.

In light of the foregoing, this Honorable Court is constrained to find that the respondents' conduct through their failure, refusal, and/or neglect to comply with the court's orders constitutes contempt of Court.

*Issue 2: Whether the circumstances of the case necessitate any measures being taken against the respondents.*

It is unquestionably accurate to express that without sanctions, the law of contempt is diluted, reducing its effectiveness in deterring disrespect or defiance 15 toward the authority of the courts- a situation that is intolerable in any society committed to the rule of law and upholding judicial integrity.

Litigants cannot be permitted the discretion to choose which orders to comply with and how to comply with the said orders. To allow court orders to be disobeyed would be to stride the road towards lawlessness and the risk of 20 derailing the rule of law. If violations of court orders continue to go unpunished, we risk undermining the progress made in upholding the sanctity and authority of court. Indeed, the deliberate disobedience or disregard of court orders constitutes contempt of court, as it erodes public confidence in the legal system and threatens the rule of law. Once the court determines that a party has not 25 complied with its order, it may impose both coercive and compensatory sanctions. Mindful to state that the law of contempt is quasi- criminal and it results in penal consequences.

In determining the punishment which is apt to the circumstances which have led to a finding of contempt, it is appropriate to bear in mind the purposes of


- 5 punishing the contemnor; deterring the contemnor and others in the future from committing like contempt; and denouncing the conduct concerned in an approximately emphatic way. *(see; Mubiru , J in Miscellaneous Application No. 2863 of 2023 Industrial Development Corporation of Southern Africa vs Aya Investments (U) Limited)* - 10 The sanctions that may follow a finding of contempt are; (i) imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, with or without a fine as an additional penalty; (ii) payment of a fine, a monetary penalty within the discretion of the court; (iii) compensation: the court may order the contemnor to compensate the party affected by the contempt. This compensation is intended to remedy any 15 losses or damages suffered due to the contemptuous act; and (iv) purging contempt: contemnors have the option to purge contempt by complying with the order or undertaking that they previously violated.

Civil contempt can be punished by committal to civil prison, sequestration, fines, or injunctions against the contemnor and disregard of a court order is 20 considered a serious matter regardless of the nature of the order, as emphasized in the case of *Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd vs. Commission General Uganda Revenue Authority Misc. Application No. 042/2010*. The courts hold that the law must not act in vain, and matters concerning contempt of court take precedence over other cases invoking the court's jurisdiction.

25 According to the case of *Re Contempt of Dougherty 429 Michigan 81, 97 (1987),* imprisonment for civil contempt is appropriately ordered when a defendant refuses to perform an affirmative act mandated by a court order. If the contempt involves refusal to do something ordered for the benefit of the opposing party, the contemnor may be committed until compliance is achieved. Such an order


5 is not punitive but coercive, intended to compel adherence to the court's directive rather than to punish.

In respect to imposing fines, the amount is within the discretion of the court, and it may vary based on the circumstances of the contempt. Multiple cases demonstrate that courts often respond to contempt findings by ordering the

10 payment of fines.

In *Nambasi Nelson Ludambisa v. Khan Investments Ltd, High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 602 of 2018*, the respondent was fined shs. 20,000,000/= for contempt of court, ordering the amount to be deposited in court within fortyfive days. This sanction arose after the respondent, despite prior knowledge of a

15 court order requiring the vehicle to be impounded at the applicant's business premises for three weeks pending agreement on payment terms, instead sold it.

In *Industrial Development Corporation of Southern Africa (supra),* the Court ordered the respondent to deposit with it the duplicate Certificate of Title within seven (7) days. Upon the respondent's failure to comply, the Court imposed a 20 fine of shs. 50,000,000/=, to be paid into Court.

Relying on established judicial standards, I am assured that contempt of court is addressed with utmost seriousness, with remedies designed to enforce obedience, reflecting the courts' unwavering commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice. The High Court is required to exercise its jurisdiction 25 in accordance with common law and the doctrines of equity, applying its discretion based on principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, as

provided under sections *14(2)(b)(i) and 14(2)(c) of the Judicature Act cap 13*.


- 5 This court has already found that the respondents refused to obey the orders of court which were mandatory in character and would have been for the benefit of the applicant. Guided by the practice of Courts in punishing contempt of court as illustrated in the decisions cited above, I am inclined on these facts to impose remedial and punitive sanctions. - 10 The Applicant prayed to court seeking a number of remedies as a result of the respondents' conduct against the lawful order of court to the detriment of the applicants.

I am alive to the position of the law of contempt that, the 2nd respondent being a legal person, one or more sanctions can be imposed on legal persons, upon a

- 15 finding of contempt against them. These may comprise; imposition of a fine; asset seizure (sequestration); committal of one or more directors or officers of the corporation; imposition of a fine upon one or more directors or officers of the corporation. In the circumstances, reliefs can only be granted against the 2 nd respondent by way of attachment of its property or imposition of a fine. - 20 Consequently, I make the following orders; - 1. The respondents are directed to transmit to the Applicant's premises at Plot 38A Martyrs' Way, Ntinda, within a period of 14 days of this order, the motor vehicle registration No. UAN 635G which they removed, in contempt of the court order in MA 1109 of 2019, from CID Headquarters, 25 Kibuli. - 2. Each of the respondents is to pay, within 45 (forty five) days of this order: - a) A fine of shs. 20,000,000/= (twenty million shillings) into court, and - b) Damages of shs. 50,000,000/= (Fifty million shillings) to the applicant.


- Failure of which the 1st 5 respondent is to be arrested and to serve a term of imprisonment of two (2) months, and in respect to the 2nd respondent, recovery is to be by attachment and sale of their properties. - 3. The costs of the application are awarded to the applicant. - 10

Dated, signed and delivered electronically this 13 th day of June, 2025.

S. Odongo 15 JUDGE