Katooro v Macekenyu (Civil Reference 7 of 2022)

Supreme Court · [2023] UGSC 69 · 2023 Reference Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Reference to the full Court from a single Justice's refusal of an application for an interim injunction

Decision

Reference dismissed for being res judicata, with costs to the respondent

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

On a reference from a single Justice, the Supreme Court overruled the first preliminary objection, holding that a court record (Civil Application No. 4 of 2022) which existed at the time of the single Justice's hearing was not additional evidence requiring leave under Rule 52(2). However, the Court sustained the second preliminary objection, finding that Civil Applications Nos. 4 and 5 of 2022 sought the same injunctive relief against the same respondent, pending the same suit, that had already been finally refused in Civil Application No. 31 of 2020. The matter was therefore res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the reference was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The Court had earlier determined, in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2014, that the respondent was the rightful owner of land in Bunyangabu District. The applicant subsequently filed several applications seeking clarification of those orders and injunctive relief restraining the respondent from dealing with the land pending determination of Civil Application No. 1 of 2020. An earlier application for a temporary injunction in those circumstances, Civil Application No. 31 of 2020, was heard and dismissed by a single Justice. The applicant later filed Civil Application No. 4 of 2022 for a temporary injunction and Civil Application No. 5 of 2022 for an interim order. The single Justice dismissed the interim application on the basis that there was no substantive application for a temporary injunction on record, the Court Clerk having found no copy. The applicant brought this reference challenging that finding.

Issues

Whether the evidence of Civil Application No. 4 of 2022, a substantive application for a temporary injunction, was additional evidence requiring leave of the Court under Rule 52(2) of the Supreme Court Rules.
Whether the reference, and the applications from which it arose, were res judicata having regard to the prior determination of Civil Application No. 31 of 2020.

Orders

First preliminary objection overruled.
Second preliminary objection (res judicata) sustained.
Reference dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — References from a Single Justice — Additional Evidence under Rule 52(2) of the Supreme Court Rules

A court record, such as an application already filed and existing at the time of the single Justice's hearing, is not additional evidence within the meaning of Rule 52(2) of the Supreme Court Rules and may be relied upon on a reference without leave of the Court.

Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act — Successive Injunction Applications

Successive applications seeking the same injunctive relief against the same party, pending the determination of the same suit, are res judicata where the underlying issue has already been heard and finally decided by a competent court.

Legislation cited (3)

Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.7
Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 Rule 52(2)
Judicature Act s.8(2)

Cases cited (2)

Karia and Another v Attorney General and Two Others (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
Ismail Karshe v Uganda Transport Ltd (HCCS No. 553 of 1966)

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.