Wakilii

Nakesero Market Sitting Tenants( Namasite) Limited v Nakesero Market Sitting Vendors and Traders Limited (Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2021] UGCA 45 · 2021 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal (with cross-appeal) from a High Court ruling striking out a civil suit and dismissing an injunction application on res judicata and no cause of action grounds
Decision
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; main suit struck out for failing to disclose a cause of action

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (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 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 4 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. 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 of Appeal held that the suit was not res judicata because the appellant was neither a party to the earlier judicial review (Misc. Cause No. 32 of 2012) nor litigating under the same title, and the issues raised differed. However, the court upheld the striking out of the suit on the ground that the plaint disclosed no cause of action: the appellant's claimed right derived only from a government market-redevelopment policy and presidential directive not anchored in legislation, which confer no enforceable legal right. The appeal was therefore allowed in part (on res judicata) but dismissed in part, the main suit was struck out, and the respondent was awarded half the costs of appeal and full costs below.

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; main suit struck out for failing to disclose a cause of action

Facts

The appellant company filed High Court Civil Suit No. 501 of 2015 against the respondent and Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA), alleging that KCCA had fraudulently or illegally awarded a sublease to the respondent to redevelop Nakasero market, comprised in LRV 2808. The appellant sought to set aside the award, obtain the sublease itself or form a joint venture, plus damages, injunction, interest and costs. It also filed applications for temporary and interim injunctions. The respondent applied to strike out the suit and injunction application as res judicata and disclosing no cause of action, relying on an earlier consent order in Misc. Cause No. 32 of 2012 between the respondent and KCCA. The appellant was not a party to that earlier matter. The trial judge dismissed the suit and injunction application as res judicata and for no cause of action. The appellant's claimed right to the sublease derived from a Ministry of Local Government policy and presidential directive on market redevelopment favouring registered sitting tenants and vendors.

Issues

  1. Whether High Court Civil Suit No. 501 of 2015 was res judicata by reason of an earlier consent order in High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 32 of 2012.
  2. Whether the plaint in High Court Civil Suit No. 501 of 2015 disclosed a cause of action against the defendants.
  3. Whether a government policy or presidential directive not anchored in legislation confers a legal right capable of founding a cause of action.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.
  • Grounds 1 and 3 succeed (suit not res judicata); ground 2 fails (no cause of action).
  • High Court Civil Suit No. 501 of 2015 struck out.
  • Respondent awarded half the costs of the appeal.
  • Respondent awarded full costs of the struck out High Court Civil Suit No. 501 of 2015.

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Requirement of Same Parties or Privies Litigating Under Same Title
A plea of res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot succeed where the party against whom it is raised was neither a party to the former suit nor a privy litigating under the same title, and where the issues in dispute differ, notwithstanding that the subject matter is the same.
Cause of Action — Determination from the Plaint
Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action is determined from the pleadings alone; a cause of action exists only where the plaint shows that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right was violated, and that the defendant is liable.
Government Policy and Presidential Directive — No Legal Right Where Not Anchored in Legislation
Neither a government policy nor a presidential directive that is not anchored in legislation has legal force to confer a right or interest on a person; a plaintiff relying solely on such a policy or directive cannot establish a legal interest capable of founding a cause of action.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (12)

  • Karia & another v Attorney General & others [2005] 1 EA 83
  • Kamunye & others v The Pioneer General Assurance Society Limited [1971] EA 263
  • [2009] UGCA 45
  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza [1998] KALR 185
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] E.A 514
  • Tororo Cement Co. Limited v Frokina International Limited [2001] KALR 182
  • [2002] UGSC 24
  • Teraj Sharif & Co. v Chotai Fancy Stores [1960] EA 374
  • Ponsiyano Semakula v Susane Magala & others [1993] II KALR
  • Paul Kanyima v Rugooba (1982) HCB 33
  • GJ Fernandez v State of Mysore & Ors. [AIR 1967 SC 1753]
  • Cotter v Attorney-General for Kenya (1938), 5 EACA 18

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

Nakesero Market Sitting Tenants( Namasite) Limited v Nakesero Market Sitting Vendors and Traders Limited (Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2016) [2021] UGCA 45 (27 May 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.