Wakilii

Ham Enterprises and 2 Others v Katende and 348 Others (Consolidated Suits) (Miscellaneous Application No. 717 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 222 · 2022 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application seeking to strike out pleadings and dismiss consolidated civil suits on grounds of res judicata, lack of cause of action, and lack of locus standi
Decision
All five consolidated suits dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 claims in two consolidated suits challenging the validity of leases issued on trust land were res judicata, having been previously determined in HCCS No. 544/2019 where the court ruled that leases created under the Registration of Titles Act were valid and took supremacy over the Nakivubo War Memorial Stadium Trust Act. Three other consolidated suits brought by former market vendors claiming unlawful eviction and seeking compensation were struck out for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and lack of locus standi, as the pleadings disclosed operation of an illegal unlicensed market without a market license as required by the Markets Act and KCCA ordinances. Application allowed and all five consolidated suits dismissed with costs.

Outcome

All five consolidated suits dismissed

Facts

The Board of Trustees of Nakivubo War Memorial Stadium Trust, a statutory entity, is the registered proprietor of trust land designated for sports development under the Nakivubo War Memorial Stadium Trust Act. The land suffered heavy encroachment and the adjacent stadium fell into disrepair and was condemned by FUFA. To redevelop the stadium and redeem the land from encroachers, the Trust executed a Memorandum of Understanding with Ham Enterprises and granted it leases on the trust land for construction of lock-up shops. Six groups of respondents then filed suits challenging the validity of the leases as being in violation of the Trust Act (two public interest suits under Article 50) and seeking compensation for alleged unlawful eviction as former market vendors who claimed they operated businesses on the land and were displaced without notice. The applicants challenged all six suits as incompetent. One suit was subsequently withdrawn by consent.

Issues

  1. Whether the suits or claims in HCCS No. 66/2017 and HCCS No. 330/2013 are res judicata
  2. Whether the pleadings in HCCS No. 678/2017, HCCS No. 134/2017 and HCCS No. 351/2018 fail to raise any reasonable cause of action
  3. Whether the Respondents/Plaintiffs in HCCS No. 678/2017, HCCS No. 134/2017 and HCCS No. 351/2018 have legal capacity or locus standi to sue the Applicants
  4. Whether the suits in HCCS No. 66/2017 and HCCS No. 330/2013 are incompetent or premature for failure to adhere to remedies under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act 2003

Orders

  • A declaration hereby issues that the Respondents/Plaintiffs pleadings and claims in HCCS No. 678/2017, HCCS No. 134/2017 and HCCS No. 351/2018 are founded on illegalities and fail to raise any reasonable cause of action, are devoid of merit and are incompetent before this court.
  • The Respondents/Plaintiffs suits and claims in HCCS No. 66/2017 and HCCS No. 330/2013 are barred in law for being res judicata.
  • An Order issues striking out the pleadings and/or dismissing the consolidated suits in HCCS No. 66/2017, HCCS No. 678/2017, HCCS No. 330/2013, HCCS No. 351/2018, and HCCS No. 134/2017.
  • Costs to the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Public Interest Litigation — Explanation 6 to Section 7 CPA
Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right claimed in common for themselves and others under Article 50 of the Constitution, all persons interested in that right are deemed to claim under the persons so litigating, and subsequent suits by different plaintiffs on the same subject matter are barred as res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and Explanation 6 thereto.
Registration of Titles — Supremacy over Other Laws — Conflict of Laws
The Registration of Titles Act has supremacy over all other laws as regards land under its operation by virtue of Section 2(1) RTA. Where the Nakivubo War Memorial Stadium Trust Act was enacted in 1953 after the Registration of Titles Act came into force in 1924, the RTA takes precedence and leases created under Section 101 RTA on registered freehold land are valid notwithstanding any provisions of the Trust Act.
Cause of Action — Test for Reasonable Cause of Action — Striking Out
A reasonable cause of action means a cause of action with some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleading are considered. For a plaintiff to establish a sustainable cause of action, the plaint must show (a) that the plaintiff had a right, (b) that the right was violated or breached, and (c) that the defendant is liable. A plaint that fails to establish a legal right cannot disclose a reasonable cause of action.
Markets — Licensing Requirements — Illegality as Bar to Suit
Under the Markets Act and the Local Governments (Kampala City Council) (Markets) Ordinance 2006, no person may establish or maintain a market within KCCA jurisdiction without a market license. In the absence of a market license, operation of a market is illegal and cannot form the basis of a valid cause of action. A party cannot derive locus standi to institute an action from engaging in a prohibited activity restricted under law.
Locus Standi — Unlawful Occupation — Illegality
For a plaintiff to sustain a valid claim for unlawful eviction, it is incumbent that he or she establishes lawful occupation of the land in issue and not occupation in trespass or through illegal activity. A legal claim cannot be founded upon commission or occurrence of an illegal activity, and courts cannot be invited to condone that which is illegal.
Affidavit Evidence — Advocate as Deponent — Authorization
An advocate employed by a law firm retained by a client is by extension an advocate appointed by that client under Order 3 Rule 1 CPR. An advocate may depone an affidavit on behalf of a client on matters within the advocate's knowledge under Order 19 Rule 3(1) CPR, or on matters of mixed law and fact which the client is incapable of deposing to, without requiring separate written authorization, provided the affidavit is based on facts within the advocate's knowledge.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (27)

  • Migadde Gonzaga and Baryomunsi Charles v The Trustees of Nakivubo War Memorial Stadium and Ham Enterprises (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 544 of 2019)
  • David Sejjaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
  • General Industries (U) Ltd v NPART and 3 Others (Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2007)
  • 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 (Court of Appeal 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)
  • Namayega v Etot and 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 939 of 2019)
  • Dima Dominic Poro v Inyani Godfrey (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2016)
  • Njau & Ors v. City Council of Nairobi [1976 -1985] 1 EA 397
  • Lee v. Lee Air Farming Ltd. (1961) A.C. 12
  • Takya Kushwahiri and Another v Kajonyu Denis (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2011)
  • Uganda Commercial Bank vs Kigozi [2002]1 EA 35
  • Mistry Amar Singh vs Serwano Wofunira Kulubya [1963] E.A page 408
  • Scott v. Brown, Doering, McNab & Co. (3)[1892] 2 Q.B. 724
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Basajjabalaba Hides & Skins Ltd v Bank of Uganda and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 738 of 2011)
  • Samwiri Massa vs. Rose Achen (1978) HCB 279
  • Kalyesubula Fenekansi v Luwero District Land Board and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 367 of 2011)
  • Makerere University vs. St. Mark Education Institute Ltd. & Ors (1994) KALR 26
  • Three Ways Shipping Services Group Ltd v MTN (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 584 of 2013)
  • Oriental Commercial Bank Ltd vs. Shreeji Contractors Ltd & Ors, HCCA (Kenya) No. 81/2017
  • Bank of Uganda vs. Banco Arabe Espanol [2002] 2 EA 293

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Ham Enterprises and 2 Others v Katende and 348 Others (Consolidated Suits) (Miscellaneous Application No. 717 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 222 (31 October 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.