| dc.description.abstract | The concept of Contempt of Court encompasses a range of intricate issues, including compromise and inequities within the administration of justice. These challenges arise despite the primary objective of the concept, which is to safeguard the judiciary and its officers from potential threats and to foster the effective administration of justice. This study highlights the historical progression of the concept. To establish its relevance and applicability, the research adopts a comparative framework, drawing upon the experiences and practices from India, Nigeria, and the United States; these case studies provide compelling insights into the administration of justice as it pertains to contempt of court in Uganda. Utilizing a qualitative research design, the study assesses various practices and the significance of contempt of court. It elucidates the conceptual definitions and proposes a theoretical framework upon which the concept may be founded. The research identifies the issue as one that demands meticulous consideration and critical analysis if contempt is to achieve its intended objectives. The findings reveal that the concept of contempt of court is quite abstract and ambiguous, even among judicial officers. However, its judicious application is essential, as it offers opportunities for enhancement within the justice system of the country. Nonetheless, the study underscores the necessity for checks and balances to ensure that the application of contempt provides consistency and equity within the Ugandan justice system. It is recommended that the concept of contempt can effectively promote the ends of justice if clear legislative guidelines are established, the competencies of judicial officers are improved, and the perception of contempt as a punitive measure is transformed. Moreover, it is imperative to ensure that the application of contempt remains insulated from external and political influences, in addition to conducting extensive research and documentation that would lead to a more meaningful implementation of the concept. Finally, courts should adopt a more open stance towards constructive criticism from legal counsel regarding the judiciary and its personnel. | en_US |
