Katooro v Macekenyu (Civil Reference 7 of 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.

Holding

On a reference from a single Justice, the Supreme Court overruled the first preliminary objection, holding that a court record (Civil Application No. 4 of 2022) which existed at the time of the single Justice's hearing was not additional evidence requiring leave under Rule 52(2). However, the Court sustained the second preliminary objection, finding that Civil Applications Nos. 4 and 5 of 2022 sought the same injunctive relief against the same respondent, pending the same suit, that had already been finally refused in Civil Application No. 31 of 2020. The matter was therefore res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the reference was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Reference dismissed for being res judicata, with costs to the respondent

Facts

The Court had earlier determined, in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2014, that the respondent was the rightful owner of land in Bunyangabu District. The applicant subsequently filed several applications seeking clarification of those orders and injunctive relief restraining the respondent from dealing with the land pending determination of Civil Application No. 1 of 2020. An earlier application for a temporary injunction in those circumstances, Civil Application No. 31 of 2020, was heard and dismissed by a single Justice. The applicant later filed Civil Application No. 4 of 2022 for a temporary injunction and Civil Application No. 5 of 2022 for an interim order. The single Justice dismissed the interim application on the basis that there was no substantive application for a temporary injunction on record, the Court Clerk having found no copy. The applicant brought this reference challenging that finding.

Issues

1. Whether the evidence of Civil Application No. 4 of 2022, a substantive application for a temporary injunction, was additional evidence requiring leave of the Court under Rule 52(2) of the Supreme Court Rules.
2. Whether the reference, and the applications from which it arose, were res judicata having regard to the prior determination of Civil Application No. 31 of 2020.

Orders

• First preliminary objection overruled.
• Second preliminary objection (res judicata) sustained.
• Reference dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (3)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.7
• Judicature (Supreme Court Rules) Directions S.I 13-11 Rule 52(2)
• Judicature Act s.8(2)

Cases cited (2)

• Karia and Another v Attorney General and Two Others (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2002)
• Ismail Karshe v Uganda Transport Ltd (HCCS No. 553 of 1966)

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