Middle North Tobacco Corporative Union Limited & Another v Ocan & 2 Others (Civil Suit 62 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

Held that all questions arising between parties to a suit relating to the execution of a decree must be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act. The auction purchasers are representatives of the judgment creditor, and the court bailiff may be joined in proceedings under Section 34 where there is excess or wrongful attachment. The 2nd Plaintiff, being described as a board of governors of a primary school, is a non-existent legal entity incapable of suing, as primary schools are managed by management committees under the Education Act. The suit is an abuse of process where plaintiffs abandoned prior applications and instituted a fresh suit amounting to forum shopping. Suit struck out.

Outcome

Suit struck out on preliminary objections — plaintiffs barred from instituting suit in High Court under Section 34 of Civil Procedure Act; 2nd Plaintiff is non-existent legal entity with no locus standi; suit amounts to forum shopping and abuse of process

Facts

In 2008, Atek Christine sued the 1st Plaintiff in the Chief Magistrates Court for wrongful termination of employment. Judgment was entered in her favour in January 2013 for UGX 3,013,900 plus interest and costs. In 2014, a warrant of attachment and sale was issued against the 1st Plaintiff's property. The 1st Plaintiff paid UGX 3,000,000 as part payment in February 2015 and pledged to pay the balance within three months. In March 2015, the court bailiff (3rd Defendant) sold 0.875 acres of the 1st Plaintiff's land to the 1st and 2nd Defendants for UGX 25,000,000 in execution of the decree. The 1st and 2nd Defendants subsequently applied for delivery of vacant possession, which application was initially dismissed, then reinstated and granted. The Plaintiffs filed multiple applications in the Magistrates Court challenging the execution and sale, all of which were abandoned. The Plaintiffs then instituted this fresh suit in the High Court seeking recovery of the land, alleging the sale was wrongful, fraudulent, and undervalued, and that it included property belonging to the 2nd Plaintiff who was a tenant of the 1st Plaintiff. The 1st and 2nd Defendants raised preliminary objections challenging the propriety of the suit.

Issues

1. Whether the suit is wrongly before the High Court and should have been brought under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act before the Chief Magistrates Court executing the decree.
2. Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action against the defendants.
3. Whether the 2nd Plaintiff has locus standi to institute the suit.
4. Whether the suit is res judicata.
5. Whether the suit should be struck out for non-payment of court fees.

Orders

• Suit struck out.
• 1st Plaintiff to bear the costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (12)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.34
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.82
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.83
• Magistrates Court Act Cap 16 s.220
• Education (Pre-Primary, Primary and Post-Primary) Act 2008 s.2
• Education (Pre-Primary, Primary and Post-Primary) Act 2008 s.28
• Education (Pre-Primary, Primary and Post-Primary) Act 2008 s.44
• Education (Pre-Primary, Primary and Post-Primary) Act 2008 s.58
• The Judicature (Court Fees, Fines and Deposits) Rules S.I. 13-3 Rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 11
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 9 rule 22
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 22 rule 82

Cases cited (22)

• Sinba (K) Ltd and 4 Others v Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (SCCA No. 3 of 2014)
• Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (SCCA No. 21 of 2001)
• Sikuku Agaitano v Uganda Baati Ltd (HCCS No. 298 of 2012)
• Dima Enterprises Poro v Inyani Godfrey (High Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2016)
• Okello Johnson v Lalam Angella (High Court Civil Appeal No. 013 of 2019)
• Mansukhlal Ramji Karia and Another v Attorney General and 2 Others (SCCA No. 20 of 2002)
• Simon Tendo Kabenge Advocates v Mineral Access Systems Ltd (HCMA No. 570 of 2011)
• Francis Nansio Micah v Nuwa Walakira (SCCA No. 24 of 1994)
• Francoise Mukyo v Rebecca Mawanda and Another (CACA No. 15 of 2008)
• Uganda v Hon. Kasiano Ezati Wadri and 31 Others (High Court Criminal Revision No. 0002 of 2018)
• Hannington Waswa case
• Philemon Wandera and 2 Others v Yesero Mugenyi and Another (CACA No. 061 of 2009)
• Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefunza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
• Auto Garage v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 514
• Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (CACA No. 3 of 2000)
• Jeraj Shriff & Co v Chotai Fancy Stores [1960] 1 EA 374
• Njau and Others v City Council of Nairobi [1976-1985] 1 EA 397
• Ponsiano Semakula v Susane Magala and Others (1993) KALR 213
• Okumu and 7 Others v Uganda Electricity Transmission Company Limited and 6 Others (SCCA No. 18 of 2020)
• Fort Hall Bakery Supply Co v Fredrick Muigai Wangoe [1959] 1 EA 474
• Abdulrahman Elamin v Dhabi Group and 2 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2013)
• Lawrence Muwanga v Stephen Kyeyune (SCCA No. 12 of 2001)

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