Understanding Contempt of Court in Uganda: Legal Principles and
Ramifications
By Andrew Kakaire LLB (MAK) Dip. LP (LDC)
In the realm of jurisprudence, the notion of contempt of court stands as a
formidable pillar, upholding the sanctity of legal processes and ensuring
the administration of justice remains unimpeded. In Uganda, as in many
jurisdictions worldwide, contempt of court is a serious matter, carrying
significant legal implications. Defined by a multitude of legal principles
and precedents, contempt of court encompasses conduct that undermines
the authority of the judiciary or obstructs the due course of justice.
According to Osborne’s Concise Law Dictionary, contempt of court consists
of conduct that interferes with the administration of justice or obstructs
the course of justice. In law, contempt of court is defined as an act or
omission tending to “unlawfully and intentionally violate the dignity,
repute or authority of a judicial body, or interfering in the administration
of justice in a matter pending before it; (see Principles of Criminal Law 1
ed (Juta, Cape Town 1991) at 627; R v. Almon (1765) 97 ER 94 at 100;
Ahnee and others v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] 2 WLR 1305
(PC); R. v. Gray, [1900] Q.B. 36, at p. 40 and R v. Metropolitan Police
Commissioner, Ex parte Blackburn (No 2) [1968] 2 All ER 319 (CA).
It can manifest in various forms, including disobedience of court orders or
breach of undertakings made before the court. However, before an action
can be deemed contemptuous, several fundamental principles must be
established.
Firstly, there must be the existence of a lawful court order. This order
serves as the legal foundation upon which contempt proceedings are
initiated. Secondly, the alleged contemnor must have knowledge of the
order. Ignorance of the order's existence does not absolve one from
liability. Thirdly, there must be a failure to comply with the order,
constituting disobedience. The party subject to the order is obliged to
adhere to it fully, regardless of personal beliefs regarding its validity.(See
Odoi Odome v Uganda Electricity Generation Company (Miscellaneous
Application 1088 of 2022) [2023] UGCommC 45)
In the event of non-compliance, the consequences can be severe.
Disregard for a court order is considered a matter of grave concern,
irrespective of the order's nature. As stated in the case of Hadkinson vs.
Hadkinson, cited in Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd and Another vs. Commissioner
General Uganda Revenue Authority H.C. Misc. Application No. 42 of 2010),
disregard for a court order carries significant gravity.
Moreover, the jurisdiction of the court takes precedence over other
matters, emphasizing the paramount importance of upholding judicial
authority. A court of law never acts in vain; thus, issues pertaining to
contempt of court are accorded high priority.
Civil contempt, one form of contempt, is punishable through various
means, including committal or sequestration. Additionally, fines or
injunctions may be imposed against the contemnor. These punitive
measures underscore the seriousness with which courts address
contemptuous behavior.
The legal definition of contempt of court extends beyond mere
disobedience of orders. It encompasses acts or omissions that unlawfully
violate the dignity, repute, or authority of the judiciary. Any interference in
the administration of justice in matters before the court constitutes
contemptuous conduct.
To establish contempt, certain criteria must be met. The accused party
must have knowledge of the order's existence, possess the ability to
comply, and lack just cause or excuse for non-compliance. Civil contempt
is a strict liability offense, necessitating proof of the order's service and
subsequent violation. Once non-compliance is proven, the burden shifts to
the potential contemnor to justify their actions.
Clarity and precision in court orders are imperative. The order should
leave no room for ambiguity, ensuring the respondent understands their
obligations unequivocally. Ambiguous orders may lead to
misunderstandings or inadvertent violations, undermining the integrity of
contempt proceedings.
Notice of court orders is equally crucial. No order can be enforced through
contempt unless personally served on the party concerned. This
requirement safeguards against arbitrary enforcement and ensures the
principles of natural justice are upheld. (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)
In Uganda, the legal landscape surrounding contempt of court is shaped
by both domestic statutes and judicial precedents. The Contempt of Court
Act provides a statutory framework for addressing contemptuous
behavior. Additionally, decisions from the Ugandan courts, such as the
Housing Finance Bank Ltd & Another vs. Edward Musisi case, contribute to
the evolving jurisprudence on contempt.
The judiciary plays a pivotal role in upholding the rule of law and
safeguarding the administration of justice. Contempt proceedings serve as
a bulwark against attempts to undermine judicial authority or obstruct
legal processes. By holding individuals accountable for their actions, the
courts ensure that the principles of fairness, impartiality, and legality are
upheld.
However, the power to cite individuals for contempt of court is not
absolute and must be exercised judiciously. Courts must balance the need
to preserve their authority with respect for individual rights and freedoms.
Excessive use of contempt powers can stifle dissent and undermine the
principles of democracy and human rights.
Moreover, contempt proceedings should be conducted with transparency
and adherence to due process. Accused parties must be afforded the
opportunity to defend themselves and present mitigating factors. Fairness
and impartiality are paramount to maintaining public confidence in the
judiciary.
In conclusion, contempt of court in Uganda encompasses conduct that
undermines the authority of the judiciary or obstructs the due course of
justice. Defined by legal principles and precedents, contempt proceedings
serve as a mechanism for upholding the rule of law and ensuring the
integrity of legal processes. While the courts wield significant powers to
address contemptuous behavior, such powers must be exercised
judiciously and with due regard for individual rights and liberties. By
upholding the principles of fairness, transparency, and impartiality, the
judiciary plays a vital role in preserving the foundations of democracy and
the rule of law in Uganda.
