Wakilii

Kaggwa v Kato (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1998)

High Court · [2002] UGHC 20 · 2002 Appeal Allowed — Suit Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from the Chief Magistrates Court of Luwero challenging a judgment awarding damages for trespass
Decision
Suit struck out as res judicata

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 the suit was barred by res judicata under Civil Procedure Act s.7. The matter in issue—damages arising from trespass to Plot 106 committed before January 1992—was directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit H.C.C.S. No. 9 of 1992 between the same parties. Any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of attack in the former suit is deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue. The trial court was therefore barred from entertaining the claim.

Outcome

Suit struck out as res judicata

Facts

The respondent sued the appellant for damages arising from trespass to Plot 106 at Luwero Trading Centre. The respondent claimed the appellant had demolished his building in April 1990 and constructed his own building extending onto Plot 106. The appellant had been registered owner of Plot 106 but this title was cancelled by court order in H.C.C.S. No. 9 of 1992 on grounds of fraud. In that earlier suit, filed 6 January 1992, the respondent had prayed for cancellation of title, permanent injunction, alternative compensation, and damages. The trial judge concluded the damages claim had been abandoned. The Chief Magistrate's Court found for the respondent and awarded damages for trespass. The appellant appealed, contending the matter was res judicata.

Issues

  1. Whether the proceedings were res judicata by reason of a previous suit between the same parties over the same subject matter.
  2. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in light of the doctrine of res judicata.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment, decision and decree of the Chief Magistrates Court set aside.
  • Suit filed in the court below struck out.
  • Costs to the appellant here and below.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Matters Directly and Substantially in Issue
No court shall try any suit in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties and has been heard and finally decided. The language of Civil Procedure Act s.7 is mandatory and denies courts jurisdiction to entertain such claims.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Duty of Court to Apply Statute
A court is under a duty, whether at trial or even on appeal for the first time, to give effect to statutory provisions barring res judicata claims. The court cannot turn a blind eye to the substance of the provisions merely because the matter was not raised in the court of first instance.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Matters Which Ought to Have Been Raised
Under Civil Procedure Act s.7 Explanation 4, any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in the former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in that suit. A claim for compensation arising from trespass committed before the filing of the former suit ought to have been litigated in that suit.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Relief Not Granted Deemed Refused
Under Civil Procedure Act s.7 Explanation 5, any relief claimed in a suit which is not expressly granted by the decree shall be deemed to have been refused. Where a claim for damages was made in a former suit but the trial court concluded it had been abandoned, the claim is deemed to have been refused and cannot be resurrected in a fresh suit.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Test for Same Matter in Issue
In determining whether a matter is res judicata, the court must consider not whether the causes of action are different but whether the two matters in question were directly and substantially in issue in both suits, even if those matters gave rise to different causes of action.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (2)

  • Semakula v Magala & others [1979] HCB 9
  • Tsamburakis v Rodussakis [1958] E.A. 400

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kaggwa v Kato (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1998) [2002] UGHC 20 (12 September 2002)
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.