Wakilii

Bansagira Building Contractors (1977) Ltd v Attorney General (HCT-00-CC-CS 330 of 2009)

High Court · [2010] UGCOMMC 19 · 2010 Preliminary Objection Upheld — Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection on points of law to civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Suit dismissed on preliminary objection

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 held that the plaintiff's suit for breach of contract arising from a 1997 construction contract and its 2004 addendum was barred by res judicata. The parties had previously settled the same dispute by consent judgment in 2006 in full and final settlement. The court found that the matters now raised could and should have been included in that settlement under section 7 explanation 4 of the Civil Procedure Act. The suit was also time-barred, as the cause of action arose in 2004 following the IGG report, not in 2008.

Outcome

Suit dismissed on preliminary objection

Facts

The plaintiff company entered into a contract in 1997 with the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries for construction of valley tanks and dams at Shs 1,817,292,883. The contract was varied by addendum in February 2004 to Shs 2,523,193,939. The Inspectorate of Government intervened and recommended contract termination with payment of special damages. The plaintiff had previously filed Civil Suit No. 299 of 2001 involving the same parties and contract, which was settled by consent on 24 July 2006 with special damages and interest agreed at Shs 198,688,208 in full and final settlement. The plaintiff now brought fresh proceedings in 2009 claiming special damages of Shs 1,797,940,000 for breach of the same contract and its 2004 addendum.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by the principle of res judicata arising from a consent judgment in an earlier suit between the same parties.
  2. Whether the plaintiff's suit was time-barred under section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Consent Judgments — Full and Final Settlement
Where parties settle a dispute by consent judgment stating it is in full and final settlement, matters that might and ought to have been raised as grounds of claim or defence in the former suit are deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue, and the principle of res judicata bars subsequent litigation on the same subject matter between the same parties.
Res Judicata — Three Conditions for Application
For res judicata to be established, three conditions must be fulfilled: first, there must have been a former suit or proceeding involving the same parties; second, the matter in issue in the later suit must have been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; third, a court competent to try it must have heard and finally decided the matters in controversy between the parties in the former suit.
Limitation — Actions Against Government — Contracts
Under section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, no action founded on contract shall be brought against the Government after the expiration of three years from the date of the cause of action.
Breach of Contract — Accrual of Cause of Action
Where a government report recommends termination of a contract and non-operationalisation of a contract addendum, the cause of action for breach accrues at the time of that report, not at a later date when correspondence merely clarifies the existing position without effecting termination.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Hawkesworth v Attorney General [1974] 1 EA 406
  • Ganatra v Ganatra [2007] 1 EA 76

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bansagira Building Contractors (1977) Ltd v Attorney General (HCT-00-CC-CS 330 of 2009) [2010] UGCommC 19 (11 July 2010)
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.