Wakilii

Kivumbi Cranimer(Suing through Kabogoza Simon & Kitandwe Godfrey) v Nakato Roy & Wasswa William (Civil Appeal 36 of 2019)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 28 · 2024 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of Chief Magistrate's Court of Kasangati in Civil Suit No. 43 of 2016
Decision
Proceedings, judgment and decree in lower court suit declared null and void ab initio and set aside. Lower court directed to try earlier pending suit CS No. 044 of 2008.

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 where a previous suit between the same parties over the same subject matter remains pending, section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act prohibits a court from trying a subsequent suit raising the same matter in issue. The lower court had no jurisdiction to try CS No. 43 of 2016 while CS No. 044 of 2008 remained pending. A court exercising jurisdiction not vested in it renders all proceedings, judgment and decree a nullity and void ab initio. Appeal allowed; proceedings in CS No. 43 of 2016 set aside as a nullity.

Outcome

Proceedings, judgment and decree in lower court suit declared null and void ab initio and set aside. Lower court directed to try earlier pending suit CS No. 044 of 2008.

Facts

Kivumbi Cranimer appealed against a decision in CS No. 43 of 2016 concerning a kibanja on Kyadondo Block 158B Plot 56 at Namulonge-Nabalanga in Wakiso District. Kivumbi was the grand uncle of the respondents Nakato Joy and Wasswa William. Four earlier suits had been filed concerning the same kibanja. A Sub-County Local Council Court decision in 2008 was a nullity as the court was not legally constituted following the transition from movement to multi-party system. Kivumbi and Kabogoza Simon jointly filed CS No. 044 of 2008 against the late Sarah Nabagala (mother of the respondents) over the same kibanja. An ex parte judgment was rendered in 2009. In 2016, the respondents successfully applied to set aside that ex parte judgment, leaving CS No. 044 of 2008 as a pending suit. Subsequently, Kivumbi filed CS No. 43 of 2016 against the respondents over the same kibanja while CS No. 044 of 2008 remained pending.

Issues

  1. Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to try Civil Suit No. 43 of 2016 when a previous suit (CS No. 044 of 2008) between the same parties over the same subject matter remained pending.
  2. Whether the proceedings and judgment in CS No. 43 of 2016 were barred under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • A declaration is made that the proceedings, judgment and decree in CS No. 43 of 2016 are a nullity and void ab initio, and are hereby set aside.
  • The learned Chief Magistrate of the Chief Magistrates' Court of Nabweru at Kasangati is directed to try CS No. 044 of 2008 in accordance with the law as soon as possible.
  • Any fresh trial of CS No. 43 of 2016 is stayed until the disposal of CS No. 044 of 2008.
  • Should the plaintiffs in CS No. 044 of 2008 not wish to continue with their suit and abandon it, the defendants therein are at liberty to file a counter-claim subject to the law on limitation of actions.
  • Costs of the appeal and CS No. 43 of 2016 are to be borne by the appellant Mr. Kivumbi Cranimer for abuse of court process.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Bar on Trial of Subsequent Suit — Section 6 Civil Procedure Act
Where a previous suit between the same parties or parties claiming under them over the same subject matter remains pending, section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act removes jurisdiction from the court to try a subsequent suit in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same as in the pending suit.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Meaning of 'Same Title' — Same Capacity
The expression 'same title' in section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act means 'the same capacity'. A suit is barred where parties claim under the same title even if they are not the identical parties in the earlier suit.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Illegality versus Irregularity — Effect of Doing What Statute Prohibits
Where a judge omits to do something which a statute enacts shall be done, the omission may amount to no more than an irregularity in procedure. Where a judge does something which a statute says shall not be done, the doing of the prohibited thing is ultra vires, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Jurisdiction — Proceedings Without Jurisdiction — Effect as Nullity
All proceedings and judgment arising out of a matter in which a court exercised jurisdiction not vested in it are no proceedings at all and no decision at all. They are a nullity and void ab initio. Such judgments and orders are void and of no legal effect.
Civil Procedure — Illegality — Court's Duty to Set Aside Illegal Proceedings
A court of law cannot sanction that which is illegal. Once an illegality is drawn to the attention of court, it overrides all questions of pleadings, including any admissions made, and the court must set aside such illegality.
Constitutional Law — Local Council Courts — Legal Constitution — Effect of Transition from Movement to Multi-Party System
The decisions of Local Council Courts during the period when they were not legally constituted following the transition from the movement system to the multi-party system after the 2005 constitutional amendment and 2006 general elections were a nullity and devoid of any force of law.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Nalongo Burashe v Kekitiiowa Mangadalena (Court of Appeal No. 89 of 2011)
  • Saleh Bin Kombo Bin Faki v Administrator General, Zanzibar [1957] EA 191
  • Eriazali Bameka v Dodvico Nviri (Civil Revision No. 1 of 1973)
  • Desai v Warsama [1957] 1 EA 351
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Court of Appeal No. 4 of 1981)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kivumbi_Cranimer(Suing_through_Kabogoza_Simon_&_Kitandwe_Godfrey)_v_Nakato_Roy_&_Wasswa_William_(Civil_Appeal_36_of_2019)_[2024]_UGHCLD_28_(19_January_2024)
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.