Wakilii

Kijjwa Stuart and Others v Kalemesa Samuel Wilson (Miscellaneous Application No. 163 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 266 · 2025 Application Granted — Plaint Struck Off AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike off plaint in underlying suit HCCS No. 508 of 2024 for being frivolous, vexatious, and disclosing no cause of action
Decision
Underlying suit HCCS No. 508 of 2024 struck off; application granted

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 held that the underlying suit HCCS No. 508 of 2024 was frivolous, vexatious, bad in law, and an abuse of court process. The suit sought to relitigate matters already decided in HCCS No. 142 of 2012, violated mandatory joinder rules by failing to sue all administrators of the estate, and improperly challenged the Commissioner Land Registration's decision through the wrong procedure. The plaint was struck off under Order 7 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Outcome

Underlying suit HCCS No. 508 of 2024 struck off; application granted

Facts

The Respondent filed HCCS No. 508 of 2024 seeking cancellation of titles to land comprised in Kyaddondo Block 246 Plot 1916 and its subdivisions, claiming he acquired the land from Israel Kiddu, a beneficiary of the estate of late Saulo Kikujjuko. The estate is administered by two administrators: Kijjwa Stuart (1st Applicant) and Kizza Betty. The Respondent sued only one administrator. The suit land's history had been extensively investigated in HCCS No. 142 of 2012, where the court found the Respondent fraudulently acquired the land without proper documentation or letters of administration. The Commissioner Land Registration had cancelled the Respondent's title under section 91 (now 88) of the Land Act after summoning him and issuing notice to effect changes, which he did not attend. The Respondent also sued the 3rd Applicant (an employee of the Administrator General) in her personal capacity for removing a caveat, though she acted in her official capacity.

Issues

  1. Whether the affidavit in reply sworn by the Respondent should be struck off for being filed out of time.
  2. Whether HCCS No. 508 of 2024 is frivolous and vexatious.

Orders

  • Application allowed with costs to the Applicants.
  • HCCS No. 508 of 2024 struck off under Order 7 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the Defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Striking Off Pleadings — Affidavit in Reply — Time Limits
An affidavit in reply to an application must be filed within 15 days from the date of service. Uploading a court document onto ECCMIS which automatically notifies the opposite party amounts to sufficient service. Where an affidavit in reply is filed within the prescribed time, it is proper on record and cannot be struck off.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Section 7 Civil Procedure Act — Relitigating Decided Matters
Under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, no court may 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 by a competent court. A suit seeking to relitigate matters already investigated and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Administrators — Order 31 Rule 2
Where there are several administrators of an estate, Order 31 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules mandates that they shall all be made parties to a suit against one or more of them. Failure to join all administrators when suing in relation to estate property renders the suit grossly irregular.
Administrative Law — Land Registration — Appeals Against Commissioner's Decision — Proper Procedure
Under section 88(12) of the Land Act (formerly section 91(10)), any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commissioner Land Registration must appeal to the District Land Tribunal (now Magistrates Court per Practice Direction No. 1 of 2006) within 60 days. Filing a fresh suit in the High Court to challenge the Commissioner's decision is a grossly irregular procedure and an abuse of court process.
Civil Procedure — Frivolous and Vexatious Suits — Striking Off Under Order 7 Rule 11
A suit is frivolous and vexatious if it is baseless, has no chance of success, is merely intended to harass the defendant, lacks any reasonable legal or factual justification, and is intended to exhaust the defendant's and court's time and resources. Such a suit may be struck off under Order 7 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Unrebutted Averments — Deemed Admissions
Facts averred in an affidavit that are not rebutted by the opposite party are deemed to be admitted. Where a respondent fails to rebut material averments in an application, the court may assume those averments to be true.
Civil Procedure — Agency — Suing an Agent Where Principal is Known
An agent cannot be sued in their individual capacity where the principal is known and the agent acted in their official capacity. Where an employee of the Administrator General acts in their official capacity, they should not be sued personally.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (5)

  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Visare (U) Ltd v Festus Katerega T/A Quickway Auctioneers & 3 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 2855 of 2023)
  • Bank of Uganda & Greenland Bank (in liquidation) v Kaweesi Sulaiman & 26 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 1047 of 2022)
  • Mugasa Grace Adyeri v Commissioner, Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 257 of 2023)
  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 297

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kijjwa_Stuart_and_Others_v_Kalemesa_Samuel_Wilson_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._163_of_2025)_[2025]_UGHCLD_266_(10_September_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.