British American Tobacco Uganda Ltd v Muwema & 2 Ors (Civil Suit No. 751 of 2014)
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 all preliminary objections raised by the defendants. It held that res judicata did not apply because the current claim for recovery of money paid to the defendants as advocates was distinct from the prior suits concerning unpaid goods. The 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants, although joining the partnership after the initial payment, were liable to account for partnership funds under their control. The suit was not a matter of professional misconduct under the Advocates Act but a claim for money had and received. The pending constitutional petition and cost taxation proceedings provided no grounds for staying the suit.
Outcome
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to trial
Facts
British American Tobacco Uganda Limited had entered into a tobacco supply contract with farmers. Disputes arose and the farmers sued in HCCS 268 of 2005, obtaining judgment against the plaintiff. During the Court of Appeal proceedings, the parties reached a Deed of Settlement under which the plaintiff agreed to pay UGX 4,600,000,000 to the farmers. The plaintiff paid this sum to the farmers' advocates, Muwema and Mugerwa Advocates, but the settlement was never endorsed by the court. The Court of Appeal and Supreme Court subsequently ordered the plaintiff to pay UGX 14,364,358,042. The defendants paid UGX 630,000,000 back to the plaintiff by way of partial refund on 15 July 2014. The plaintiff then filed this suit seeking recovery of the balance of the monies paid under the unendorsed settlement. The defendants raised preliminary objections seeking dismissal or stay of the proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff's suit is barred in law as a consequence of res judicata.
- Whether the plaintiffs have an actionable claim in law and on facts of the case against all or any of the defendants.
- Whether the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants have any legal liability for acts of the firm of Muwema and Mugerwa Advocates in relation to this suit.
- Whether the suit should be stayed pending taxation of costs in the High Court Civil Suit No. 268 of 2005 and other pending proceedings.
- Whether the suit should be stayed pending determination of Constitutional Petition No. 13 of 2015.
Orders
- All preliminary objections dismissed.
- Proceedings in the suit shall proceed against all defendants.
- Costs incurred because of the preliminary objections shall abide the final decision.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Civil Procedure Act s.6
- Civil Procedure Act s.7
- Advocates Act s.25
- Advocates Act s.17
- Advocates Act s.26
- Advocates (Remuneration) Regulations r.26
- Partnership Act s.19
Cases cited (6)
- Sedrach Mwijakubi and Others v British American Tobacco Uganda Limited (HCCS No. 268 of 2005)
- Civil Appeal 50 of 2008
- Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2012 in the Supreme Court
- British American Tobacco (U) Limited v Sedrach Mwijakubi and Others (SC Misc. Application No. 7 of 2013)
- Jim Muhwezi v Attorney General (Misc. Application No. 18 of 2007)
- Fred Muwema v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 13 of 2015)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.