Wakilii

Buryahika and 2 Others v Hoima Sugar Limited and 7 Others (Civil Suit No. 20 of 2015)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCRD 21 · 2022 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit brought on behalf of 394 plaintiffs for trespass, illegal eviction, destruction of property and violation of constitutional rights. Seven of the eight defendants were dropped during mediation, leaving only the 1st defendant.
Decision
Suit dismissed. Plaintiffs declared to have no interest whatsoever in the defendant's suit land.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (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 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations fading — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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

Held that the plaintiffs could not sustain the suit. A prior suit, Civil Suit No. 38 of 2012, had been finally determined in favour of the defendant's predecessor in title, declaring the land to be his and the plaintiffs trespassers with no interest. The issues in the present suit were substantially the same issues determined in the prior suit between the same parties. The present suit was therefore barred by res judicata, and the 1st defendant, as transferee of the deceased's land, was bound by and entitled to enjoy the benefit of that judgment in rem. The plaintiffs failed to prove loss or destruction of property. Suit dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant.

Outcome

Suit dismissed. Plaintiffs declared to have no interest whatsoever in the defendant's suit land.

Facts

The plaintiffs, claiming to be customary tenure holders on land in Muziranduru, Kijayo, and Kyendagano villages, sued the 1st defendant for illegal eviction and destruction of property. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant breached an interim injunction issued in a prior case, Civil Suit No. 38 of 2012, which had restrained parties from interfering with each other's occupation pending final determination. The 1st defendant acquired the land from Herbert Rwakiswaza Kimera (deceased), the defendant in the prior suit. Civil Suit No. 38 of 2012 was heard and determined in favour of Kimera's estate before the present suit concluded. The court in that earlier suit declared the land to be Kimera's and the plaintiffs trespassers with no interest. The 1st defendant took possession, cleared bush, and planted sugar cane, compensating 164 families who had infiltrated the land. Those who refused compensation were left to stay. The plaintiffs produced photos they claimed showed destruction, but the defendant argued these depicted existing fields and recent encroachments.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiffs can sustain this suit on the same piece of land in light of the existing decided Civil Suit No. 038 of 2012 in the same court.
  2. Whether the plaintiffs and 391 others have been customary tenure holders and occupants of the various pieces of land situated in the villages of Muzirenduru, Kijayo and Kyendagano all in Munteme parish, Kiziranfumbi Sub County, Buhaguzi County in Hoima District.
  3. Whether land registered as LRV 4394, Folio 25, plot No. 40 Bugahya Block 6 (later corrected as Block 12) is one and the same with land comprised in and located at Muziranduru, Kijayo, Kyendagano-Munteme parish, Kiziranfumbi sub county, Buhanguzi county, Hoima District claimed by the plaintiffs.
  4. Whether the plaintiffs have any interest in the 1st defendant's registered land.
  5. Whether the plaintiffs and 391 others have suffered loss of household properties, damage and destruction to their homesteads, gardens occasioned by the 1st defendant (surviving defendant), its servants or agents in the course of their employment accruing from violation of the court order in H.C.C.S No. 038 of 2012.
  6. Whether the 1st defendant's (surviving defendant) its servants or agents, motor vehicles were present and participated in the various processes leading to eviction of the plaintiffs.
  7. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' suit against the defendants is dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant/surviving defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Prior Final Judgment — Same Issues Between Same Parties
Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act prohibits the trial of a suit in which the matter in issue has been substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or parties under whom they are litigating, and a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction has made a pronouncement over the same. For the doctrine of res judicata to apply, there must have been a former suit decided by a competent court; the matter in dispute in the former suit must also be directly and substantially in dispute in the subsequent suit; and the parties in the former suit should be the same parties or parties under whom they claim, litigating under the same title.
Res Judicata — Scope — Points That Could Have Been Raised
A plea of res judicata applies not only to points upon which the first court was actually required to adjudicate, but to every point which belonged to the subject matter of litigation and which the parties or their privies, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time. Claims for compensation or loss of properties that arose during the pendency of the prior suit are points which belonged to the subject matter of litigation and ought to have been brought forward during the trial of the prior suit.
Assignment of Interest During Suit — Continuation Under Order 24 Rule 9 CPR
Where a party's interest in the subject matter of a suit devolves upon another during the pendency of the suit, the suit may be continued by or against the person to or upon whom the interest has devolved, with the leave of the court, under Order 24 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules. If no such step is taken to add the new interest holder as a party, the suit may continue with the original party, and the person upon whom the interests have devolved will be bound by and can have the benefit of the decree. An assignee or transferee who acquired rights during the pendency of the former suit is bound by and entitled to enjoy the benefit of the judgment or decree passed in that suit.
Judgment In Rem — Effect on Third Parties
A judgment in rem is a judgment which declares, defines, or otherwise determines the status of a person or thing, or the jural relation of the person or thing for the world generally. Such a judgment is conclusive not only against the parties to it but also against the world. The effect of a judgment in rem is to bind all persons, even when they are not parties to the proceedings, and to estop them from averring that the status of persons or things or the right or title to property are other than what the court has declared by its judgment.
Injunctions — Enforcement — Contempt of Court
Where an order of injunction is disobeyed or breached, the proper remedy is to apply to the court that issued the order to hold the violator guilty of civil contempt. The court may pass orders for detention of the contemnor in civil prison or by way of sequestration, or in the case of companies, haul up the directors for contempt and punishment. Filing a separate suit for damages arising from breach of an injunction, rather than seeking enforcement of the order by the court that issued it, is an abuse of the process of the court.
Injunctions — Termination Upon Final Disposal of Suit
Orders of injunction operate only until the disposal of the suit finally. In the event there is a transaction or act contrary to the injunction, the same would not take effect if the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. But in the event the plaintiff's suit fails, the necessary consequence is that the order of injunction comes to an end, and the transaction or act carried out pending the suit would continue and take effect. A cause of action anchored on an injunction that came to an end when the underlying suit was determined in favour of the defendant is untenable.
Photographic Evidence — Lack of Date and Location
Where photographs adduced as evidence are neither dated nor show the location of the scenes, and the party adducing them concedes these deficiencies, the court may find it difficult to ascertain the period to which the photographs refer. Such photographs are of limited evidential value, particularly where similar allegations of destruction were made in a prior suit and the photographs do not show the acts of destruction alleged.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (14)

  • Nsubuga v Kavuma [1978] HCB 307
  • Arim Felix Clive v Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2015)
  • Gbaniyi Osafile & Anor Vs Paul Odi & Anor 149/1987
  • Floros Vs Arroy (1961) 56 Cal.2 d 492, 496
  • Mifumi (U) Ltd & 12 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2007)
  • Mansuklal Ranji Karia & Anor v A.G & 2 Others [2005] 1 ULSR 157
  • Ponsiano Semakula v Susane Magala & Others [1993] KALR 2013
  • Greenhalgh v Mallard [1947] 2 All ER 255
  • DHURANDHER PRASAD SINGH VS JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY & ORS (2001) 6 Supreme Court case No.534
  • Japheth Nzila Muangi Vs Kenya Safari Lodges and Hotels Ltd [2008] e KLR
  • SAROJI GANDESHA VS TRANSROAD LTD S.C.C.A NO. 13 OF 2009
  • Clarke v Chadburn (1985) 1 WLR 78
  • Sujit Pal Vs Prabir KumanSun & Ors 1985 [SCC Online Cal 14]
  • Dr. Charles Twesigye v Kyambogo University (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 120 of 2017) [2017] UGHCCD 193

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Buryahika and 2 Others v Hoima Sugar Limited and 7 Others (Civil Suit No. 20 of 2015) [2022] UGHCCRD 21 (6 May 2022)
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.