Wakilii

Joseph Baliddawa v Ddamulira Walubi Yusuf and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 286 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 305 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out plaint arising from main suit HCCS No. 347 of 2022
Decision
Plaint in HCCS No. 347 of 2022 struck off; applicant awarded costs

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times 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

The court struck out the plaint in HCCS No. 347 of 2022 as vexatious and an abuse of court process. The suit concerned land comprised in Kyaddondo Block 255 Plot 1873, which had been cancelled by court order in M/A 2307 of 2021 and was therefore non-existent. Additionally, the plaintiff sought to challenge the implementation of existing court orders through a fresh suit rather than through proper appellate procedures, while the main suit HCCS No. 53 of 2014 concerning the parent plot remained pending.

Outcome

Plaint in HCCS No. 347 of 2022 struck off; applicant awarded costs

Facts

The applicant filed HCCS No. 53 of 2014 seeking a declaration of ownership over land comprised in Kyaddondo Block 255 Plot 104. The High Court issued an interim order in M/A 119 of 2014 preventing dealings with the land pending disposal of the main suit. In defiance of that order, the 2nd respondent subdivided Plot 104 creating new plots including Plot 1873. The applicant filed M/A 2307 of 2021 for contempt, and the court ordered cancellation of the subdivision and reconstitution of Plot 104. The 2nd respondent complied and cancelled Plots 1872, 1873 and 1874. The 1st respondent then filed HCCS No. 347 of 2022 seeking to derive interest in Plot 1873, which had been cancelled and no longer existed. The 1st respondent admitted in his affidavit that he had been aware of HCCS No. 53 of 2014 since April 2014 and had been advised by his lawyer to await its outcome. HCCS No. 53 of 2014 remained pending and undisposed of.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint in HCCS No. 347 of 2022 is vexatious and an abuse of court process.
  2. What are the remedies available?

Orders

  • The plaint in HCCS No. 347 of 2022 is struck off with costs to the applicant/1st defendant in accordance with Order 7 rule 11(e) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The 1st respondent shall pay costs of this application to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Abuse of Process — Suit Based on Non-Existent Land
A suit premised on land that has been cancelled by court order and is therefore non-existent is vexatious and an abuse of court process and liable to be struck out under Order 7 rule 11(e) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Collateral Attack on Court Orders — Proper Procedure
Where a party seeks to challenge the implementation of existing court orders, the proper procedure is to appeal or apply to set aside those orders, not to institute a fresh suit. Filing a fresh suit for this purpose constitutes an abuse of court process.
Land & Property — Lis Pendens — Filing Fresh Suit on Subject of Pending Litigation
Where land is the subject of pending litigation and interim orders prohibiting dealings with that land remain in force, a party who is aware of the pending suit should await its determination rather than institute a fresh suit concerning subdivided portions of the same land that were created in contempt of court orders.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Joseph_Baliddawa_v_Ddamulira_Walubi_Yusuf_and_Another_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._286_of_2023)_[2024]_UGHCLD_305_(5_June_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.