Wakilii

Alcon International Limited v National Social Security Fund (Civil Suit 133 of 2020)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 177 · 2024 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit seeking return of plant, machinery, equipment and building materials in detinue or, in the alternative, recovery of their value
Decision
Suit dismissed on preliminary objections without determination on merits

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for return of plant, machinery and equipment allegedly detained since 1998 on three preliminary grounds: (i) the matter was res judicata, having been substantively determined in prior proceedings (Civil Suit No. 1255 of 1998, arbitration proceedings, and appeals culminating in Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009); (ii) the claim was tainted by fraud, misrepresentation and illegality arising from the plaintiff's fraudulent entry onto the construction site under the guise of being Alcon International Limited (Kenya); and (iii) the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action in detinue because no proper demand for return of goods was pleaded or evidenced.

Outcome

Suit dismissed on preliminary objections without determination on merits

Facts

From 1994 to 1998, the plaintiff erected 19 floors of Workers' House for the defendant at Plot 1, Pilkington Road, Kampala. On 15 May 1998, following termination of the construction contract, the defendant closed the plaintiff out of the construction site and denied it access to remove its plant, machinery, equipment and building materials. The defendant had contracted with Alcon International Limited (Kenya) for the construction, but the plaintiff, Alcon International Limited (Uganda), performed the work without the defendant's knowledge. The plaintiff's identity was not discovered until Court of Appeal proceedings in 2007. Prior litigation between the parties concerning the same plant and equipment claims had proceeded through arbitration, High Court Civil Suit No. 1255 of 1998, and multiple appeals including Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009, which ultimately found the plaintiff had no cause of action based on the Kenya contract. The retried suit was dismissed in 2018 for non-disclosure of cause of action. The plaintiff then filed the present suit in 2020 claiming in detinue.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's claim is res judicata?
  2. Whether the plaintiff's claim is bad in law for fraud, misrepresentation and illegality?
  3. Whether the plaintiff's suit discloses a cause of action against the defendant?
  4. Whether the defendant is liable for the return or replacement value of the plaintiff's plant, machinery, equipment and building materials that were taken by the defendant?
  5. What remedies are available to the plaintiff?

Orders

  • Suit dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Three Essential Elements
For the doctrine of res judicata to apply under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, three conditions must be satisfied: (a) there must be a former suit or issue decided by a competent court; (b) the matter in dispute in the former suit must be directly or substantially in dispute between the parties in the present suit; and (c) the parties in the former suit must be the same parties or parties under whom they claim, litigating under the same title.
Res Judicata — Application to Claims for Plant and Equipment
Where a claim for plant, machinery and equipment was raised and determined in prior proceedings between the same parties (including through arbitration, initial suit, multiple appeals, and retrial), and the retrial suit was dismissed for non-disclosure of cause of action without any appeal being filed, a subsequent suit claiming the same plant, machinery and equipment is barred by res judicata, even if framed as a new cause of action in tort rather than contract.
Fraud and Illegality — Entry onto Premises under Fraudulent Identity
Where a party enters onto another's premises and performs construction work by fraudulently representing itself to be the contracted party with whom the owner had agreed to contract, and this fraud is concealed for over a decade until discovered through court proceedings, the fraudulent party cannot derive benefit from such conduct. Fraud unravels everything and a court will not sanction claims arising from illegal transactions.
Detinue — Elements Required to Disclose Cause of Action
To disclose a cause of action in detinue, a plaint must demonstrate: (a) that the property belongs to the plaintiff; (b) that the property is unlawfully held by the defendant; (c) that a demand was made by the plaintiff for return of the property; and (d) that there was refusal by the defendant to return the goods upon demand without justifiable reason. The essence of detinue is the wrongful withholding of the plaintiff's goods after demand.
Cause of Action — Test for Disclosure in Plaint
To determine whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the court must look only at the plaint and its annexures. A cause of action is disclosed where the plaint demonstrates the existence of a right which has been violated and the liability of the defendant for the violation of such right. The existence of the right to bring suit must be established at the time of filing the plaint.
Limitation — Application of Six-Year Period to Tort Claims
Under section 3(1)(a) of the Limitation Act, an action founded on tort must be brought within six years from the date the cause of action arose. The limitation period is strict and inflexible and is not concerned with the merits of the case. A claim for recovery of value of property arising from alleged wrongful detention in 1998, filed in 2020 (over 22 years later), is time-barred even if characterized as arising from a continuing tort.
Illegality — Effect on Court Proceedings
An illegality once brought to the attention of the court overrides all questions of pleadings including any admissions made thereon. A court of law cannot sanction that which is illegal. A party cannot seek to recover from a transaction in which it was illegally performing without any contractual relationship with the other party.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (20)

  • Ponsiano Semakula v Susane Magala & Ors [1993] KALR 213
  • Mansukhlal Ramji Karia & Anor v Attorney General & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
  • HCCS 553 of 1966; Ismail Karshe Vs Uganda Transport Ltd
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank & Ors (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Makula International Limited v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Anor (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702
  • Onzia Elizabeth - vs- Shaban Fadul HCCA No. 09 of 2013
  • Fakrudin Vallibhai Kapasi & Anor vs Kampala District Land Board & Anor Civil Suit No. 570 of 2015
  • Nixon v Sedger (1890) 7 TLR 112
  • Abdu Ochaki & 98 Ors vs British American Tobacco (2017)
  • J.A Osama vs Transocean (U) Ltd HCCS No. 1385 of 1986
  • Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd vs NPART CACA No. 3 of 2000
  • Wycliffe Kiggundu vs Attorney General Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1993
  • Attorney General v Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Nalubega Ruth t/a Nyonyi Traders vs DL Properties Ltd & Anor HCCS No, 294 of 2021
  • Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Issa Bukenya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 92 of 1992)
  • Madhvani International SA v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2010)
  • Hilton v Sutton Steam Laundry [1956] 1 KB 73

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Alcon International Limited v National Social Security Fund (Civil Suit 133 of 2020) [2024] UGHCCD 177 (31 October 2024)
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.