Wakilii

China Road and Bridge Corporation v Welt Machinen Eng Ltd & Anor (HCMA NO. 876 OF 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCCD 146 · 2016 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of judgment on admission and related orders arising from HCMA No. 806 of 2016, HCMA No. 700 of 2016 and HCCS No. 278 of 2016
Decision
Matter part-heard pending valuation report by Chief Government Valuer

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

Held that while the 2nd respondent (Attorney General) had rights conferred by an earlier judgment to recover the monetary value of aggregate mined without a licence, those rights could be ceded to the 1st respondent through admission. However, the applicant was entitled to notice before execution against monies owed to it by UNRA. Paragraph 5 of the judgment on admission directing payment out of the applicant's money was struck out because the applicant was not afforded a hearing on enforcement and the monetary value of the aggregate had not been ascertained by a competent authority.

Outcome

Matter part-heard pending valuation report by Chief Government Valuer

Facts

The applicant (China Road and Bridge Corporation) had been ordered in HCCS No. 16 of 2014 to account to the Attorney General for aggregate extracted from Kamusalaba rock without a licence under the Mining Act 2003. Subsequently, the 1st respondent (Welt Machinen Eng. Ltd) sued the Attorney General in HCCS No. 278 of 2016 for unjust enrichment based on a survey report showing that part of the rock quarried was within the 1st respondent's licensed mining area. The Attorney General entered an admission of the claim, and a judgment on admission was granted directing UNRA to pay the 1st respondent from monies owed to the applicant. The applicant sought review of this judgment, arguing it was not given a hearing and the judgment violated its rights. A pending appeal and cross-appeal in respect of HCCS No. 16 of 2014 were subsisting in the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the registrar had jurisdiction to hear MA 700 and 806 arising from CS No. 278 of 2016
  2. Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents are entitled to remedies in MA 806 and 700 of 2016
  3. Whether the plaintiff's claim in CS 278 of 2016 is res judicata
  4. Whether the applicant was entitled to be heard in CS 278 of 2016
  5. Whether the applicant owes the Attorney General any money
  6. Whether the Attorney General can dispose of this money in any manner it deems fit

Orders

  • Application succeeds in part.
  • Paragraph 5 of the judgment on admission in MA 700 of 2016 is struck out.
  • Chief Government Valuer directed to ascertain the monetary value of 723,030 tons of aggregate mined by the applicant.
  • Applicant and 2nd respondent to make written representations of not more than two pages to the Valuer.
  • Valuation report to be submitted within one week.
  • Final orders to be made after receipt of the valuation report.

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Requirements — Same Parties and Same Title
A suit is res judicata only where the matter directly and substantially between parties has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or parties under whom they claim, and litigating under the same title.
Jurisdiction of Registrars — Non-Contentious Matters
Where a defendant concedes to a claim and has no defence, the matter falls under Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules as a non-contentious matter within the jurisdiction of a registrar to determine.
Right to Be Heard — Execution Against Third Party Funds
Where a judgment directs payment to be made out of monies owed to a third party not party to the suit, that third party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard on the enforcement of such judgment against their funds.
Valuation — Competent Authority — Ascertainment of Value
The monetary value of minerals or materials extracted must be ascertained by a competent authority before a court can direct payment based on such value. A technical report establishing only royalties is insufficient where the court order requires payment of monetary value.

Legislation cited (9)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

China Road and Bridge Corporation v Welt Machinen Eng Ltd & Anor (HCMA NO. 876 OF 2016) [2016] UGHCCD 146 (17 February 2016)
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.