Wakilii

Nakasero Market Sitting Vendors and traders Limited v Kampala Capital City Authourity and Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 348 of 2020)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 65 · 2021 Application Dismissed — Preliminary Objections Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging administrative decision to repossess market management
Decision
Application dismissed on preliminary objections without determination of substantive issues

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 dismissed the application for judicial review on two grounds. First, the application violated the lis pendens rule under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act as the applicant had already filed an earlier suit (HCCS No. 1141 of 2019) concerning the same subject matter. Second, the court found that the case was not a proper matter for judicial review because the dispute arose from private law rights based on a lease agreement and management contract with the respondent, rather than from the exercise of statutory powers in public law.

Outcome

Application dismissed on preliminary objections without determination of substantive issues

Facts

The applicant company, representing over 5,000 market vendors and traders, was granted a sub-lease by KCCA for Nakasero Market in 2009 after paying a premium of UGX 1,800,000,000. On 15 November 2020, KCCA took over management of the market following vendor complaints of mismanagement and in implementation of a Cabinet decision to repossess public common user facilities. The Cabinet decision reversed earlier government policy that had encouraged sitting tenants to own and manage markets. The applicant sought judicial review of KCCA's decision to eject them. However, the applicant had previously filed HCCS No. 1141 of 2019 in the Land Division challenging the same government decision to repossess the market. The relationship between the applicant and KCCA was governed by a sub-lease agreement dated 20 September 2016 and an administrative arrangement for revenue collection.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit offends the lis pendens rule.
  2. Whether the application is a proper case for judicial review.
  3. Whether the decision of ejecting the leadership of the Applicant from managing Nakasero Market and to repossess it under a new management presided over by Kampala Capital City Authority was illegal, procedurally improper, arbitrary, irrational and unlawful.
  4. Whether the Applicant is entitled to any remedies.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection that the application offends the principle of lis pendens is upheld.
  • The preliminary objection that the matter is not a proper case for judicial review is upheld.
  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Lis Pendens — Same Subject Matter
The lis pendens rule under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act prevents a court from proceeding with a suit where the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or parties claiming under them. The 'matter in issue' refers to the entire subject matter in controversy, not merely one or some common issues.
Civil Procedure — Abuse of Process — Multiplicity of Suits
The filing of multiple suits seeking the same remedies while an earlier suit is pending constitutes an abuse of court process. Section 33 of the Judicature Act empowers the court to curtail abuse of process and avoid multiplicity of suits as much as possible.
Judicial Review — Proper Subject Matter — Public versus Private Law
Judicial review is only available against a public body in a public law matter. Where the dispute arises from contractual obligations based on private law rights derived from agreements with a public body, such disputes should be resolved through ordinary civil proceedings and not through judicial review, unless the question is whether the contracting authority has exceeded its statutory powers.
Administrative Law — Statutory Bodies — Private Law Acts
Not every act of a statutory body necessarily involves an exercise of statutory power. Where a public body enters into a contract on ordinary commercial terms not fixed by statute, the relationship is governed by private law and contractual obligations should be enforced through ordinary proceedings, not judicial review.

Legislation cited (27)

Cases cited (9)

  • Jadva Karsan v Harnam Singh Bhogal [1953] 20 EACA 74
  • Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited v Richard Ivan Nangalama T/A Survesis (HCCS No. 116 of 2018)
  • Springs International Hotel Ltd v Hotel Diplomate Ltd and Boney M. Katatumba (HCCS No. 227 of 2011)
  • Attorney General v James Mark Kamoga and Another (SCCA No. 8 of 2004)
  • Arua Park Operators and Market Vendors Cooperative Society Limited v Arua Municipal Council (Miscellaneous Cause No. 0003 of 2016)
  • Rebecca Nassuna v Dr. Diana Atwine (Miscellaneous Cause No. 322 of 2018)
  • Cocks v Thanet District Council [1983] 2 AC 286
  • Nakasero Market Vendors & Traders Limited v Kampala Capital City Authority (HCCS No. 1141 of 2019)
  • Nakasero Market Sitting Vendors and Traders Ltd v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 32 of 2012)

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.

Nakasero Market Sitting Vendors and traders Limited v Kampala Capital City Authourity and Anor (Miscellaneous Cause No. 348 of 2020) [2021] UGHCCD 65 (23 July 2021)
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.