Wakilii

Karungi Elizabeth v Cairo Bank Uganda Limited and Kkingo Parents’ Transporters Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 303 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 187 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend plaint in pending civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed on the ground of res judicata; applicant may pursue appeal at Court of Appeal against judgment in Civil Suit No. 20/2022

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 court dismissed the application for leave to amend the plaint on the ground of res judicata. The applicant and the 2nd respondent had previously litigated the same issues concerning breach of contract over the sale of four buses in Civil Suit No. 20/2022 at Masaka High Court, which was determined on 16 April 2025 in favour of the 2nd respondent. The addition of Cairo Bank as the 1st respondent in the present suit was merely a cosmetic facelift and did not prevent the application of res judicata. The court held that re-litigation of the same issues between the same parties before a competent court constitutes an abuse of court process.

Outcome

Application dismissed on the ground of res judicata; applicant may pursue appeal at Court of Appeal against judgment in Civil Suit No. 20/2022

Facts

The applicant purchased four Isuzu buses from the 2nd respondent on 6 October 2021 for UGX 1,250,000,000. The buses were mortgaged to the 1st respondent as security for a loan. The applicant claimed she paid the full purchase price but the respondents did not release the registration documents. She filed Civil Suit No. 579/2024 for breach of contract. After filing, one bus was allegedly illegally attached and sold by the 1st respondent in connivance with the 2nd respondent. The applicant sought leave to amend the plaint to include these new developments. The 2nd respondent opposed, stating the applicant only paid UGX 600,000,000 and breached the agreement. The 2nd respondent had previously sued the applicant in Civil Suit No. 20/2022 at Masaka High Court for the outstanding balance of UGX 552,000,000 or return of the buses. That suit was determined in favour of the 2nd respondent on 16 April 2025. The applicant filed an application to set aside the ex parte proceedings at Masaka, which was dismissed. The applicant is pursuing an appeal at the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has proved the grounds to warrant a grant of leave to amend pleadings.
  2. Whether the application and the main suit are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Same Parties and Subject Matter
No court may try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try the subsequent suit, and has been heard and finally decided by that court.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Addition of Parties
Parties cannot evade the doctrine of res judicata by merely adding other parties or causes of action in a subsequent suit. If parties were allowed to go on litigating forever over the same issue with the same opponent before courts of competent jurisdiction merely because they give their case some cosmetic facelift on every occasion they come to court, the doctrine of res judicata would be rendered useless.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Discretion of Court
The court has wide discretion under Order 6 rules 9, 18 and 31 of the Civil Procedure Rules to allow either party to alter or amend pleadings at any stage of proceedings. The paramount guiding principle is that the intended amendment should enable the court to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties without causing injustice to the other party.
Administrative Law — Abuse of Court Process — Re-litigation
A consideration of the same issues between the same parties by a court when those issues have already been determined by a competent court constitutes an abuse of court process.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (2)

  • Omondi v National Bank of Kenya Limited and Others [2001] EA 177
  • Njanju vs Wambugu & Another Nairobi HCC No. 2340/1991 (unreported)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Karungi Elizabeth v Cairo Bank Uganda Limited and Kkingo Parents’ Transporters Company Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 303 of 2025) [2025] UGCommC 187 (23 June 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.