Wakilii

Robert Mwesigwa and Anor v Bank of Uganda (HCT-00-CC-CS 588 of 2003)

High Court · [2005] UGCOMMC 10 · 2005 Preliminary Objections Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections raised by defendant before scheduling conference in first instance civil suit for salary arrears and terminal benefits
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to determination of whether plaint discloses a cause of action

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 the suit was not res judicata where the defendant had been struck off in the prior suit under Order 7 rule 11(a) for failure to disclose a cause of action, as that ruling did not determine the matter on the merits. Order 7 rule 13 expressly permits a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action after rejection on procedural grounds. Further, section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act did not bar the suit where the parties were distinct.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to determination of whether plaint discloses a cause of action

Facts

The plaintiffs were employees of International Credit Bank Ltd. On 18 September 1998, Bank of Uganda seized the bank in exercise of its statutory powers and allegedly assumed the plaintiffs' employment contracts. Bank of Uganda subsequently terminated the plaintiffs' employment but refused to pay salary arrears and terminal benefits. The plaintiffs sued both ICB and Bank of Uganda in HCCS No. 1 of 2000. Bank of Uganda was struck off as second defendant in that suit under Order 7 rule 11(a) on the ground that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against it, particularly because the plaint did not allege bad faith and Bank of Uganda enjoyed statutory protection under section 49 of the Financial Institutions Statute. The plaintiffs filed a fresh suit against Bank of Uganda alone, remedying the defects identified in the prior ruling. The defendant raised preliminary objections that the fresh suit was res judicata and barred by section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit was res judicata by reason of a prior suit (HCCS No. 1 of 2000) in which Bank of Uganda was struck off as a defendant.
  2. Whether the suit should be stayed under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act on the ground that another pending suit raised the same issues.

Orders

  • Both preliminary objections dismissed.
  • Court to entertain the issue of whether the plaint raises a cause of action against the defendant or proceed with scheduling conference.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiffs in any event.

Rules and key headnotes

Res Judicata — Plaint Struck Out Under Order 7 Rule 11(a) — Effect on Fresh Suit
The doctrine of res judicata applies only where a matter has been heard and determined on the merits. Where a plaint is struck out under Order 7 rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules for failure to disclose a cause of action, the matter is not res judicata and the plaintiff is not barred from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action.
Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 Rule 13 — Fresh Plaint After Rejection
Order 7 rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules expressly provides that the rejection of a plaint on any of the grounds in Order 7 rule 11 shall not of its own preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action. A plaintiff may remedy defects identified in the rejected plaint and file a fresh suit.
Res Judicata — Dismissal on Preliminary Point — Opportunity to be Heard on Merits
Where a suit is dismissed on a preliminary point of law, the plaintiff has not had an opportunity of being heard on the merits and the matter is not res judicata.
Civil Procedure Act Section 6 — Bar to Multiplicity of Suits — Different Parties
Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act does not bar a suit where the parties are distinct, even if the issues overlap with those in another pending suit involving related parties.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.6
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11(a)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.13
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.10 r.1
  • Financial Institutions Statute s.30
  • Financial Institutions Statute s.31
  • Financial Institutions Statute s.49

Cases cited (3)

  • Nagokwo v Sir Charles Rutahaba [1976] HCB 99
  • Nakiride v Hotel International Ltd [1987] HCB 85
  • Busulwa v Kakinda [1979] HCB 179

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Robert Mwesigwa and Anor v Bank of Uganda (HCT-00-CC-CS 588 of 2003) [2005] UGCommC 10 (5 April 2005)
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.