Wakilii

Hard Rock Quarry Limited v Lukonge Cotton Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 97 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 246 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out civil suit on grounds of res judicata, lack of locus standi, and court being functus officio
Decision
Civil Suit No. 17/2021 dismissed with costs to the Applicants

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 rising — 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

The High Court held that HCCS No. 17/2021 was barred by res judicata and dismissed it. The court found that ownership of the disputed land had been finally decided in Civil Appeal No. 115/2015, where the Applicant was reinstated as registered proprietor. The Respondent, who purported to purchase the land from Steel Rolling Mills Limited during the pendency of the appeal in breach of section 91(11) of the Land Act, acquired no valid interest and had no locus standi to bring the suit. The court declared itself functus officio on the ownership question.

Outcome

Civil Suit No. 17/2021 dismissed with costs to the Applicants

Facts

Hard Rock Quarry (U) Limited was the registered proprietor of land comprised in LRV JJ/0346 Volume JJA 74 Folio 7 Plot 68-72 Jinja Municipality. A dispute arose with Steel Rolling Mills Limited, leading to Civil Appeal No. 115/2015, decided on 8 May 2020, in which the High Court ordered the Commissioner Land Registration to reinstate Hard Rock Quarry as registered proprietor. While this appeal was pending, in June 2018, Steel Rolling Mills sold the land to Lukonge Cotton Company Limited in violation of section 91(11) of the Land Act which prohibits transfer during the pendency of an appeal. Lukonge Cotton Company was registered as proprietor on 5 August 2020 on LRV JJA 414 Folio 22 Plot 68-72, which HCMA No. 211/2020 later confirmed was the same land. Hard Rock Quarry lodged a caveat on the land on 30 September 2020. Lukonge Cotton Company instituted HCCS No. 17/2021 seeking a declaration of ownership and removal of the caveat. Hard Rock Quarry filed the present application to strike out the suit on grounds of res judicata, lack of locus standi, and the court being functus officio.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's suit (HCCS No. 017/2021) is not maintainable in law for being barred by law (res judicata) and should be rejected, struck out and/or dismissed?
  2. Whether the Respondent has locus standi to bring High Court Civil Suit No. 017/2021 against the Applicant?
  3. Whether the Respondent's suit discloses a cause of action against the Applicant?
  4. Whether this Court is functus officio having already determined ownership of the suit property?

Orders

  • Civil Suit No. 17/2021 is found to be unmaintainable in law for being founded on illegalities and is hereby dismissed.
  • The Respondent has no locus standi to bring High Court Civil Suit No. 017/2021 against the Applicant.
  • The Respondent's suit in HCCS No. 017/2021 is hereby dismissed for failure to disclose a cause of action against the Applicant.
  • The Respondent's suit in HCCS No. 017/2021 is res judicata and this Court is functus officio.
  • Costs are awarded to the Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Elements — Same Parties, Same Subject Matter, Competent Court
For res judicata to operate as a bar to a subsequent suit under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the applicant must establish that: (a) the same parties litigated in the former suit or parties claiming under them; (b) a final decision on the merits was given in the former suit by a competent court; (c) the subject matter was directly or substantially in issue in the former suit; (d) the parties are litigating under the same title; and (e) the earlier suit was decided by a competent court that fully resolved the dispute.
Land Transactions — Prohibition on Transfer During Pendency of Appeal — Effect of Breach
Section 91(11) of the Land Act prohibits the transfer of title by a party in whose favour a cancellation of title has been effected until the expiry of the time for appeal and, where an appeal is lodged, until its determination. A land transaction undertaken in breach of this statutory provision is void and incapable of vesting any interest in land in the purported transferee.
Transfer of Title — Nemo Dat Principle — Transfer by Non-Owner
A person cannot pass a title that he does not have. Where a transferor purports to sell land while having no valid title due to a pending appeal, the transferee acquires no legal interest in that land.
Locus Standi — Corporate Plaintiff — Certificate of Incorporation
A corporate entity bringing suit must prove its legal capacity by attaching its certificate of incorporation to the plaint at the time of filing. Failure to do so is a fatal omission that renders the plaint defective for disclosing no cause of action and the plaintiff lacking locus standi.
Functus Officio — Effect of Final Judgment — Court Cannot Revisit Determined Issues
Once a court has duly pronounced a final judgment or order on the merits between parties, it becomes functus officio and has no authority to revisit, correct, alter, or supplement that judgment. Its jurisdiction over the subject matter has been fully and finally exercised and has ceased. The court cannot issue a subsequent order that would contradict or condone contempt of its earlier orders.
Orders in Rem — Binding Effect — Orders Binding on Non-Parties
A court order in rem is an order against the whole world. Once issued, it binds all parties and everyone in respect of the subject matter under litigation, whether or not they were parties to the proceedings in which it was made.
Points of Law — Raising Points of Law at Any Time — No Need for Particularization
Points of law can be raised at any time before judgment and need not be particularized in pleadings. Matters of illegality do not require particularization, unlike fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence. A court determining points of law looks at the pleadings and attachments and need not call extraneous evidence.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (55)

  • Kaahwa Stephen & Another v Kalema Hannington (High Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2011)
  • Oloka Onyango & 9 Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2014)
  • Gandesha v Lutaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1989)
  • Kabwogyi Eresome & 4 Others v Kyabashaua Jovia Busingye & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1106 of 2020)
  • Swaliki Gguta v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2016)
  • Magdeline Makinta v Fostina Nkwe, Court of Appeal No. 26/2001
  • Major (Rtd) Rowland Kakooza Mutale v Balisigara Stephen (Court of Appeal Consolidated Civil Applications Nos. 121 and 227 of 2020)
  • Sunita Jain v Pawar Kumar Jain & Ors, Case No. 174 of 2008
  • Erina Lam Oto Ongom v Opoka Bosco & Another (High Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2019)
  • Onzia v Shaban Fadul (High Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2013)
  • Ponsiano Semakula v Susane Magala & Others [1993] KALR 213
  • Karia and Another Attorney General and others (2005)1EA 83
  • Boutique Shazim Limited v Narattam Bhatia & Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2007)
  • Saroji Gandesha v Transroad Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2009)
  • Masereka & 3 Others v Mbuiraghe & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 20 of 2017)
  • Nuru Juma v Kassiano Wadri (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2017)
  • Akayima Joyce & 3 Others v Nalumansi Kalule & 2 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 111 of 2019)
  • Kanoonya David v Kivumbi & 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 616 of 2003)
  • UBC v SlNBA (K) LTD & 4 Ors CAC Appn. No. 12/22014
  • Namusisi Kellen Nyamurungi Karara v Nakamya Getrude & 4 Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 312 of 2020)
  • Bishopgate Motor Finance v Transport Brakes [1949] 1 All ER 37
  • Halling Manzoor v Serwan Singh Baram (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2001)
  • Retired Col Dr Kizza Besigye & Others v Director of Public Prosecutions & Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2006)
  • Fakrudin Vallibhai Kapasi & Another v Kampala District Land Board & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 570 of 2015)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 314
  • Advocates for Natural Resources Governance & Development & 2 Others v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition No. 40 of 2013)
  • Amritlal Mehta Kunjlata Panchasra &. Anor v Sakina waziri & 4 ORS
  • Crane Bank Limited (In Receivership) v Sudhir Ruparelia & Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 252 of 2019)
  • Makula International Limited v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Another [1982] HCB 11
  • A.V. Papayya Sastry & Others vs Government of A.P & ors Case No. Appeal (Civil) 5097- 5099 of 2004 (Supreme Court of India)
  • Mugisha Florence v Babirye Florence & 3 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 22 of 2014)
  • Jonesco v Beard [1930] AC 298
  • Medical Council v Spackman [1943] AC 627
  • Haji Numan Mubiakulamusa v Friends Estates Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2013)
  • F.J.K Zaabwe v Orient Bank & 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Re Ivan Mutaka [1980] HCB 27
  • Active Automobile & Another v Crane Bank & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2001)
  • Kyagalanyi Coffee Limited v Francis Senabulya (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2006)
  • Sam Kaggwa v Beatrice Nakityo [2001-2005] 2 HCB 118
  • Ganatra v Ganatra [2007] 1 EA 76
  • Ponsiyano Semakula v Susan Magala & Others [1979] HCB 89
  • Kafeero Sentongo v Shell (U) Limited & Uganda Petroleum Company Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 50 of 2003)
  • Kizza & Another v Kalala & 4 Others (Civil Suit No. 151 of 2004)
  • Gokaldas Lixilidas Tanna v Sister Rose Muyinza (High Court Civil Suit No. 707 of 1987)
  • John William Kahuka & Others v Personal Representative of Rt Rev Eric Sabiti [1995] V KALR 79
  • Francis Butagira v Deborah Mukasa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1989)
  • Uganda Development Bank v Muganga Construction Company [1981] HCB 35
  • Sutherland vs. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 BCCA 27
  • Goodman Agencies v Attorney General & Another (Constitutional Petition No. 3 of 2008)
  • Judith Rwakishumba & Another v Sikh Saw Mills & Ginners Limited (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 182 of 2021)
  • Samuel N Kamau v Allan Izukas & Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 250 of 2021)
  • Ismail Karshe v Uganda Transport Company Limited [1967] EA 774
  • Omondi v National Bank of Kenya Limited & Others [2001] 1 EA 177
  • Wafula Charles v Atzin Amirali Allibhai Pradhan & 5 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 2008 of 2014)
  • Nuru Hassan Shariff vs The Administrator of the Estate of the Late Shamji Jamal Lakhan

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.

Hard Rock Quarry Limited v Lukonge Cotton Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 97 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 246 (28 February 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.