Wakilii

Ariong v Angina and Anor (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 383 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 107 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to add Diamond Trust Bank as a defendant in Civil Suit No. 999 of 2019, arising from a dispute over unauthorized debiting of the applicant's account
Decision
Application dismissed with costs for abuse of court process

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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 court dismissed the application to add Diamond Trust Bank as a defendant, holding that the application and the underlying suit were barred by the lis pendens rule. The matters in issue were directly and substantially the same as those in a previously instituted suit (Civil Suit No. 76 of 2018) between substantially the same parties pending before the same court. Filing the subsequent suit constituted a multiplicity of suits and an abuse of court process.

Outcome

Application dismissed with costs for abuse of court process

Facts

On 27 July 2013, the 1st respondent took a loan facility from Diamond Trust Bank (2nd respondent) to purchase residential property, with a guarantee from the applicant. Diamond Trust Bank debited the applicant's account UGX 442,678,563 and credited the 1st respondent's account to offset the loan. The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 999 of 2019 against the 1st respondent, then sought to add Diamond Trust Bank as a defendant. However, Civil Suit No. 76 of 2018 was already pending before the High Court Commercial Division involving the same parties (Charles Angina as plaintiff, Diamond Trust Bank and Ariong Joseph as defendants) and substantially the same issues, including recovery of monies paid to service the mortgage. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the application and underlying suit were barred by lis pendens and constituted an abuse of court process.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd respondent merits being added as a party to Civil Suit No. 999 of 2019.
  2. Whether the instant application and the suit from which it arises are barred by the principle of lis pendens.
  3. Whether the instant application constitutes an abuse of court process due to multiplicity of suits.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.
  • Application dismissed for being an abuse of court process.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Lis Pendens — Test for Application of the Rule
A suit is barred by the lis pendens rule under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act where: (i) the matters in issue are directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit; (ii) the previously instituted suit is between the same parties or parties under whom they claim; and (iii) the suit is pending in the same or any other court having jurisdiction to grant the reliefs claimed.
Civil Procedure — Lis Pendens — Meaning of 'Same Parties'
The phrase 'same parties' in the context of the lis pendens rule does not require literally all the parties to the two suits to be identical; the parties need only be directly or substantially the same.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Court Process — Multiplicity of Suits
Filing a suit with matters similar to those in a previously filed suit between substantially the same parties pending before the same court constitutes a multiplicity of suits and an abuse of court process. Abuse of court process involves the use of the process for an improper purpose or a purpose for which the process was not established.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Application Cannot Proceed Where Suit is Barred
An application to add a party to a suit cannot be proceeded with or granted where a preliminary objection establishes that the underlying suit is barred by the lis pendens rule and constitutes an abuse of court process.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • Salim Jamal and Others v Uganda Oxygen Limited and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1995)
  • Samson Sempasa v P.K Sengendo (Miscellaneous Application No. 577 of 2013)
  • Springs International Hotel Ltd v Hotel Diplomate and Boney M Katatumba (Civil Suit No. 227 of 2011)
  • Equity Bank (U) Ltd v Buyinza John (Miscellaneous Cause No. 33 of 2018)
  • Ganatra v Ganatra [2007] 1 EA 76
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ariong v Angina and Anor (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 383 of 2020) [2021] UGCommC 107 (27 January 2021)
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.