Wakilii

Kayiira and 2 Others v Haji Lukenge (Civil Suit No. 162 of 2013)

High Court · [2015] UGHC 18 · 2015 Application Dismissed — Suit Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to civil suit on grounds of lis pendens and abuse of court process
Decision
Suit struck out as abuse of court process and barred by lis pendens

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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 held that Civil Suit No. 162 of 2013 was barred by the lis pendens rule under section 5 of the Civil Procedure Act, as substantially similar matters were pending in earlier suits (OS No. 14/2009 and CS No. 251/2013) between the same parties or those claiming under them. The court found that filing multiple suits in different divisions of the High Court over the same estate matters constituted an abuse of court process. The suit was struck out with costs to the defendant.

Outcome

Suit struck out as abuse of court process and barred by lis pendens

Facts

The defendant held letters of administration for the estate of the late Haji Jaffer Ssentamu, granted on 21 May 2001. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant fraudulently obtained the letters, failed to equitably distribute the estate, and failed to file an inventory. The plaintiffs sought revocation of the letters of administration. The defendant raised a preliminary objection on grounds that multiple suits had been filed by or on behalf of the same parties over the same estate matters in different divisions of the High Court. Prior suits included OS No. 14/2009 (Family Division), CS No. 126/2010 (struck out), and CS No. 251/2013 (Land Division, with counterclaim). The court found that OS No. 14/2009 remained pending though not prosecuted, and that CS No. 251/2013 contained substantially the same issues as the instant suit.

Issues

  1. Whether sections 5 and/or 7 of the Civil Procedure Act were applicable to the matters presented in this court.
  2. Whether the filing of several suits is an abuse of court process.

Orders

  • Civil Suit No. 162 of 2013 is struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Lis Pendens — Application of Section 5 Civil Procedure Act — Pending Suits Between Same Parties
Under section 5 of the Civil Procedure Act, no court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they claim, where that suit is pending in the same or other court having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed.
Res Judicata — Distinction from Lis Pendens — Requirements for Application
Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act embodies the rule of res judicata and applies only where a matter has been heard and finally decided by a court, whereas section 5 applies where a matter remains pending. The operative words in section 7 are 'heard and finally decided by that court', rendering the doctrine of res judicata inapplicable to pending but undecided matters.
Same Parties — Interpretation under Lis Pendens Rule — Not Strictly All Parties
For the lis pendens rule to apply, the expression 'same parties' cannot be given a strict interpretation to mean all parties must be identical in number. The test is whether the parties in the previous suit are directly and substantially the same as in the subsequent suit, including those claiming under the same title or as privies.
Abuse of Court Process — Multiplicity of Suits — Forum Shopping
The filing of multiple suits in different divisions of the High Court concerning the same estate and substantially the same issues, where parties are aware of pending suits and swear affidavits denying their existence, constitutes an abuse of court process. Section 33 of the Judicature Act empowers courts to avoid multiplicity of suits and demands complete and final determination of all matters in controversy in a single proceeding.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (6)

  • John Ssemakula v Pope Paul TV Social Club Ltd (Court of Appeal No. 82 of 2010)
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kanga and Another (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2004)
  • Kenya Re-Insurance Corporation vs Adda Okello Oettot, Kisumu High Court CA No. 77 of 2005
  • Leonard Ogondito vs Trust Bank Credit Ltd Kisumu High Court Civil Case No. 340/2005
  • Springs International Hotel Ltd v Hozet Obidaitoro Ltd and Nancy Katatumba and Others (Civil Suit No. 227 of 2011)
  • Mwite vs IHM [1960] EA 744

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Kayiira and 2 Others v Haji Lukenge (Civil Suit No. 162 of 2013) [2015] UGHC 18 (8 June 2015)
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.