Wakilii

Enforcement of Patients and Healthworkers' Rights Ltd and Another v Karungi and Othersthers (HCT-01-CV-MC-0019-2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 579 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights enforcement application seeking redress for alleged violations of rights to life, health, and dignity following maternal death, dismissed on preliminary objection for offending lis pendens rule and constituting abuse of court process
Decision
Application dismissed on preliminary objection without determination on merits

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 dismissed a human rights enforcement application seeking declarations and compensation for maternal death on preliminary objection. The court held that the application offended the lis pendens rule under Civil Procedure Act s.6 because a prior civil suit (HCT-01-CV-0048-2022) involving substantially the same parties, facts, and reliefs was already pending before the same court. The filing of the parallel application constituted an abuse of court process, as it created a multiplicity of suits on the same subject matter. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objection without determination on merits

Facts

On 28 March 2022, Tracy Tushabe Biryomumaiso, an expectant mother in labour, attended Ntara Health Centre IV. The 1st Respondent (Dr Karungi Christine), the doctor on duty, was absent from the facility. The 2nd Respondent (Kyarikunda Dativa), a midwife, repeatedly attempted to contact Dr Karungi without success. Tracy's condition deteriorated from 4 PM to past midnight without medical intervention. A referral note was finally prepared around midnight, but no ambulance was available at the health centre and no health worker accompanied Tracy in the borrowed ambulance. Tracy died shortly after leaving the facility. On 21 July 2022, Tracy's parents and brother filed Civil Suit No. 0048 of 2022 against the three Respondents for negligence causing death, seeking declarations and damages. That suit was actively proceeding with witnesses already testifying. On 26 August 2024, EPHWOR and Tracy's daughter filed the present human rights enforcement application against the same Respondents, arising from the same facts and seeking declarations of rights violations plus compensation.

Issues

  1. Whether the instant Application offends the lis pendens rule.
  2. Whether the filing of the instant Application was done in abuse of court process.
  3. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application HCT-01-CV-MC-0019-2024 dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Lis Pendens — Application of Section 6 Civil Procedure Act — Same Parties, Facts, and Reliefs
A court shall not proceed with the trial of any suit or proceeding where the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or parties claiming under the same title, where that suit is pending in the same or any other court having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed.
Lis Pendens — Test for Application — Three-Part Test
The tests for determining whether a suit offends the lis pendens rule are: (a) whether the matters in issue in the instant suit are directly and substantially the same as in the previously instituted suit; (b) whether the parties are directly and substantially the same; and (c) whether the previous suit is proceeding or pending in a court having jurisdiction to grant the reliefs claimed.
Lis Pendens — Substantially Same Parties — Parties Claiming Under Same Title
Where a human rights enforcement application is brought by a public interest organization and a family member of the deceased, and a prior civil suit for negligence causing death was brought by other family members of the same deceased against the same defendants, the parties are substantially the same or are litigating under the same title, as they represent the same or substantially similar interests concerning the same tragic event.
Lis Pendens — Jurisdiction to Grant Relief — High Court Powers
The High Court, possessing unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139(1) of the Constitution, is competent to grant substantially the same reliefs in a civil suit for negligence causing death as those sought in a human rights enforcement application arising from the same facts, including declarations, general damages, special damages, exemplary damages, and orders for systemic reform.
Abuse of Court Process — Multiplicity of Suits — Same Subject Matter
The filing of a second action on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue, after a prior suit has already commenced and is actively proceeding, constitutes an abuse of court process, as it employs judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of the opponent and obstructs the efficient administration of justice.
Abuse of Court Process — Definition and Test
Abuse of court process involves the use of judicial process for an improper purpose or a purpose for which the process was not established, including instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue.
Remedies — Dismissal for Lis Pendens and Abuse of Process — Costs
Where an application offends the lis pendens rule and constitutes an abuse of court process, the appropriate remedy is dismissal of the offending application. The court has discretion on costs, and may order each party to bear their own costs where the application, though procedurally flawed, was brought in the public interest to highlight systemic issues.

Legislation cited (21)

Cases cited (4)

  • Springs International Hotel Ltd v Hotel Diplomate Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 227 of 2011)
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga and Another (SCCA No. 8 of 2004)
  • Benkay Nigeria Limited vs. Cadbury Nigeria Limited No. 29 of 2006 (Supreme Court of Nigeria)
  • Seraki vs Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (pt 264) 156 at 188

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Enforcement of Patients and Healthworkers' Rights Ltd and Another v Karungi and Othersthers (HCT-01-CV-MC-0019-2024) [2025] UGHC 579 (14 July 2025)
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.