Wakilii

Cantina Bar and Restaurant (SMC) Ltd and Another v Humura and Another (Miscellaneous Application 341 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 162 · 2024 Application Granted — Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out pleadings and dismiss the underlying suit for disclosing no cause of action, being barred by res judicata, and constituting abuse of process
Decision
Suit dismissed with costs to the applicants

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 High Court struck out and dismissed the respondents' suit on the grounds that it was barred by section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and constituted an abuse of process. The respondents had filed an earlier suit seeking identical relief against different parties and had failed to prosecute applications to add the applicants to that suit. The plaint reproduced claims from the earlier suit and failed to establish privity between the applicants and a tenancy agreement on which the respondents relied.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with costs to the applicants

Facts

The respondents filed HCCS No. 197 of 2020 against the Registered Trustees of Kampala Archdiocese seeking a declaration that their business name had been unlawfully grabbed, a permanent injunction, and damages. In 2023, the respondents filed HCCS No. 166 of 2023 against Cantina Bar & Restaurant (SMC) Ltd and Kato Robert seeking similar relief for passing off and unlawful use of their business name. Both the respondents and the applicants had participated in a bidding process advertised by the landlord. The applicants were successful and entered into a tenancy agreement with the landlord after the respondents had vacated the premises. The respondents had previously filed two applications to add the applicants as parties to the first suit, one dismissed for want of prosecution and one withdrawn. The applicants brought this application to strike out the pleadings and dismiss the suit.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit was barred in law by reason of a previously instituted suit between overlapping parties concerning the same subject matter.
  2. Whether the suit disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the applicants.
  3. Whether the suit was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process.
  4. What remedies were available to the applicants.

Orders

  • Application allowed with costs.
  • Respondents' suit dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Res Judicata and Lis Pendens — Section 6 Civil Procedure Act — Same Matter Pending Between Same Parties or Parties Claiming Under Them
Where a plaintiff files a fresh suit seeking identical relief against different parties arising from the same subject matter as a previously instituted and pending suit between overlapping parties, the fresh suit is barred by section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act where the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Disclosure of Cause of Action — Test
A plaint discloses a reasonable cause of action only where it shows that the plaintiff had a right, that the right was violated, and that the defendant is liable. The court must examine only the plaint and its annexures without reference to external information.
Tort Law — Passing Off — Privity — Requirement to Establish Defendant's Liability
Where a plaintiff's claim is founded on a tenancy agreement to which the defendant was not a party and the plaintiff fails to demonstrate any privity between the defendant and the agreement or any proximity between the parties, the plaint fails to disclose a cause of action for passing off or unlawful use of a business name.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings — Filing Multiple Suits Seeking Same Relief
A suit is frivolous and vexatious where a plaintiff files multiple suits and applications between substantially the same parties, fails to prosecute applications to add parties, and then files a fresh suit seeking the same relief in circumstances suggesting an ulterior motive to harass the defendant. Such proceedings should be dismissed.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out versus Dismissal — Appropriate Remedy Where Suit is Barred and Discloses No Cause of Action
Where a suit is barred by law, discloses no reasonable cause of action, and constitutes an abuse of process, the appropriate remedy is dismissal rather than striking out, as dismissal operates as res judicata and prevents re-litigation of the same subject matter.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (14)

  • Serugo Ismael v Kampala City Council and Another (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Kampala Rugby Union Football Club v Capital Ventures International Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 523 of 2011)
  • Maximov Oleg Petrovich vs Premchandra Shenoi & Anor[1998]I KALR 52
  • Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Major General David Tinyefunza v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Drummond Jackson vs British Medical Association [1970] 1 All England Law Reports page 1094
  • Auto Garage vs Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Ndungo Seti and Another v Sekiziyivu Sammy Jones and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 286 of 2011)
  • Re Singapore Souvenir Industry (Pte) Ltd [1985-1986] SLR(R) 161
  • Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc v Hartadi Angkosubroto [1998] 3 SLR(R) 664
  • Goh Koon Suan v Heng Gek Kiau [1990] SLR(R) 750
  • Waziri v Gumel (2012) 9 NWLR p 185
  • Nigeria Airways Ltd v Lapite (1990) 7 NWLR (pt 163) page 392 SC page 405

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Cantina Bar and Restaurant (SMC) Ltd and Another v Humura and Another (Miscellaneous Application 341 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 162 (25 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.