Wakilii

Moses Ssali v Nabulime Jane Kayizzi and 4 Others [2026] UGHCLD 69

High Court · 2026 Preliminary Objection Upheld — Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection raised by the 4th defendant at the commencement of the hearing of a first instance land suit in which the 4th defendant had also counterclaimed
Decision
Plaintiff's suit dismissed as an abuse of court process; counter-defendants declared trespassers, ordered to vacate within three and a half months and permanently restrained from trespass

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 sustained a preliminary objection and dismissed a fresh suit in which the plaintiff claimed a kibanja on land whose status had already been determined by the High Court in Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2011 and upheld by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 122 of 2015. Those decisions were judgments in rem declaring there were no bibanja holders on the land in 1984; they bind the whole world, including strangers to the proceedings, who are estopped from asserting the contrary. An aggrieved non-party's remedy is review under s.82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not a fresh suit, which is an abuse of process. The counterclaim succeeded.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed as an abuse of court process; counter-defendants declared trespassers, ordered to vacate within three and a half months and permanently restrained from trespass

Facts

The plaintiff claimed to have purchased a kibanja measuring about 300 ft by 330 ft by 260 ft on land comprised in Kyadondo Block 185 Plot 531 at Butenga, Kira Town Council, from the 1st defendant in 1993, and to have occupied it unchallenged for over 23 years until 2018, when he alleged the defendants, in collusion with police, disturbed his possession. The 4th defendant, registered proprietor as administrator of her late husband's estate, denied knowing the 1st defendant as a kibanja holder, denied consenting to any sale, and counterclaimed for a declaration of trespass, eviction and a permanent injunction. In an earlier suit, the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nakawa (Civil Suit No. 204 of 2009) had held the 5th defendant a trespasser on the same land; on appeal in High Court Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2011, Masalu Musene J accepted evidence that when the 4th defendant and her husband bought the land in 1984 there were no occupants or bibanja holders. That judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 122 of 2015 on 30 January 2026. The 1st and 2nd defendants denied ever selling any kibanja to the plaintiff or knowing him.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's fresh suit claiming a kibanja interest in land whose status had already been determined in earlier High Court and Court of Appeal decisions amounted to an abuse of court process.
  2. Whether judgments determining the status of and proprietary interests in the suit land are judgments in rem binding on persons who were not parties to those proceedings.
  3. Whether the plaintiff's alleged ignorance of the earlier judgment excused his failure to seek a review instead of filing a fresh suit.
  4. Whether an alleged sale of a kibanja without the consent of the registered owner could pass any interest in the land.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection raised by counsel for the 4th defendant is sustained.
  • The plaintiff's suit vide HCCS No. 0018 of 2019 is dismissed with costs to the 4th defendant.
  • It is declared that all four counter-defendants (Moses Ssali, Nabulime Jane Kayizzi, Nanyonga Margaret Kayizzi and Grace Nague Sissy Nabasujja) have no interest in the suit land comprised in Kyadondo Block 185 Plot 531 at Butenga, Kira Town Council, and are trespassers thereon.
  • The counter-defendants are ordered to vacate the suit land and hand over vacant possession to the 4th defendant within three and a half months, failing which eviction/demolition shall issue in accordance with The Constitution (Land Evictions) (Practice) Directions, 2021.
  • A permanent injunction is issued prohibiting the counter-defendants and their agents from trespassing upon the suit land.
  • The counter-defendants shall pay the costs of the counterclaim to the 4th defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Abuse of Court Process — Fresh Suit Seeking Orders Contradicting a Subsisting Judgment
The institution of a fresh suit seeking orders that would contradict a subsisting judgment of the same or a higher court over the same subject matter amounts to an abuse of court process and the suit will be dismissed to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Judgments in rem — Binding Effect on Persons Not Party to the Proceedings
A judgment pronouncing on the status of land and determining proprietary interests in it is a judgment in rem which binds all persons whether or not they were parties to the proceedings, and all persons are estopped from asserting that the status and interests in that land are other than as declared by the court.
Civil Procedure — Review — Proper Remedy of a Non-Party Aggrieved by a Judgment in rem
A third party not privy to earlier proceedings who considers himself aggrieved by a judgment in rem must apply for review under section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules rather than file a fresh suit, and a claim of ignorance of the earlier judgment fails where the judgment was drawn to his attention in related interlocutory proceedings.
Land & Property — Kibanja / Customary Tenancy — Sale Without Consent of the Registered Owner
Under section 35(1), (3) and (9) of the Land Act, no transaction is valid or effective to pass a kibanja interest in land if it is undertaken without the consent of the owner of the land.
Land & Property — Trespass — Declaration, Eviction and Permanent Injunction on a Counterclaim
Where a claimant's asserted kibanja interest is defeated by binding judicial pronouncements that no bibanja existed on the land when the registered proprietor acquired it, the claimant is a trespasser and may be declared as such, ordered to give vacant possession within a fixed period on pain of eviction under The Constitution (Land Evictions) (Practice) Directions, 2021, and permanently restrained from trespass.

Legislation cited (10)

Cases cited (8)

  • Springs International Hotel Ltd v Hotel Diplomate Ltd and Another (Civil Suit No. 227 of 2011)
  • Rose Atugonza v Hajji Ntege Nugu (Miscellaneous Application No. 524 of 2020)
  • Saroji Gandesha v Transroad Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2009)
  • Sentambule v Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2011)
  • Sentambule v Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 122 of 2015)
  • Misc. Applic. No. 193 of 2015 (Ruling dated 21/04/2016)
  • Misc. Applic. No. 29 of 2019 (Ruling dated 04/07/2019)
  • Civil Suit No. 204 of 2009, Chief Magistrate's Court of Nakawa

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Moses Ssali v Nabulime Jane Kayizzi and 4 Others [2026] UGHCLD 69 (31 March 2026)
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.