Dr Jimmy Spire Ssentongo, the Makerere University philosophy lecturer, cartoonist and activist popularly known as “Spire”, has lost his bid to stop the High Court from enforcing a Shs30 million contempt of court penalty against him.
The ruling delivered by Justice Bonny Isaac Teko dismisses Ssentongo’s application to stay, or pause, the execution of an earlier order that found him guilty of contempt of court.
The dispute began late last year when the Kansanga-based Kampala International University (KIU) went to court accusing Ssentongo of libel and defamation, saying he had posted and shared information on social media that damaged the institution’s reputation.
On December 17, 2025, the High Court issued an order restraining Ssentongo from publishing or circulating any new information on social media deemed injurious to KIU’s name.
But the row had personal roots. Ssentongo had been running a social media campaign accusing KIU of failing to refund tuition money belonging to his late brother’s children, who had transferred to another university. The money in question was Shs15.5 million.
Despite the restraining order, Ssentongo kept posting. On March 18, 2026, he posted on X, again raising the tuition refund issue. KIU treated this as a breach of the injunction and asked the court to punish him for contempt.
On June 18, 2026, the High Court Registrar, Simon Kintu Zirintusa, found Ssentongo guilty of contempt of court and ordered him to pay a fine of Shs30 million in punitive and exemplary damages to KIU, on top of costs, all within 14 days.
Failure to pay would mean three months in civil prison.
Kintu’s ruling sparked outrage among activists, journalists and opposition politicians, and by August 10, a fundraising drive led by human rights activist Agather Atuhaire had raised more than Shs 30 million in 24 hours.
Yesterday, in a post on X, Ssentongo thanked Ugandans who had contributed to his cause.
However, he had filed a suit challenging the contempt finding. He asked the High Court to stay execution of the ruling until the appeal is heard, arguing that without a stay he would be forced to pay the money and risk imprisonment before the appellate court even looked at his case.
Ssentongo’s lawyers from AF Mpanga Advocates argued that the appeal raised serious legal questions, including whether the registrar had the power to handle contempt proceedings in the first place, and whether the injunction he was accused of breaching was even clear enough to be enforced.
They said imprisonment could not be undone by a later award of damages, so Ssentongo stood to suffer harm that no amount of money could repair.
KIU, represented by lawyers from Lwere, Lwanyaga & Company Advocates, opposed the application through an affidavit sworn by Dr Mundu Mustafa, the university’s Deputy Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration.
The university argued that Ssentongo had not shown he would suffer any real loss, since any money he paid could be refunded if his appeal succeeded.
KIU also argued that Ssentongo, having already been found in contempt, should not be allowed to benefit from the court’s discretion while still defying a valid order.
Spedag sold a container of chicken entrusted to it by Fresh Cuts. Court said it was right
In his ruling, Justice Teko agreed with KIU, explaining that the law sets out three conditions a person must meet before a court can pause enforcement of a judgment pending appeal.
These are that the applicant will suffer substantial loss, that the application was filed without delay, and that the applicant has offered security to guarantee he will honour the judgment if his appeal fails.
Justice Tekp found that Ssentongo met only one of these three conditions, having filed his application promptly.
On the question of loss, the judge noted that KIU had expressly deposed it was financially capable of refunding any sums paid if required to do so, and that this had not been effectively challenged by Ssentongo.
On the requirement of security, Justice Teko noted that Ssentongo had not offered any security at all. He explained that this requirement exists to protect a winning party from being kept out of the benefits of a court decision without any guarantee that those benefits will still be there if the appeal fails.
Justice Teko also rejected the idea by Ssentongo’s lawyers that refusing the stay would make the appeal pointless.
Weighing the balance of convenience, he ruled that KIU, as the party that had already won in the lower proceedings, was entitled to enjoy the benefits of that decision without further delay, unless Ssentongo could show compelling reasons to pause it.
He found no such reasons and dismissed the application. Justice Teko ordered that each side bears its own legal costs, noting that Ssentongo had partly met the requirements for a stay even though he fell short of the full threshold.
However, Ssentongo’s appeal against the contempt finding remains pending before the Court of Appeal.
