Sentongo v Shell (U) Ltd and Uganda Petroleum Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 108 03)

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from evicting him from the suit premises. The Court held that the appellant was bound by the earlier unappealed ruling of 20 June 2002 which found the issues of subletting and possession to be res judicata, and by the consent judgment of 4 February 1998. Having sold his Mailo interest to the first respondent in 1994 and declined to appeal the relevant rulings, the appellant had no interest in the suit property at the material time. The trial judge did not err in his evaluation of the evidence, and the appeal failed on all grounds.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; refusal of temporary injunction upheld

Facts

In 1993 the appellant purchased the suit premises at Kibuye (Block 14 Plot 276) and leased them to the second respondent for 20 years, receiving over 40 million shillings in advance. He then sued the first respondent, which held an equitable lease, seeking eviction and repossession; the suit was dismissed with costs in December 1993. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant withdrew and sold his Mailo interest to the first respondent for 120 million shillings, surrendering his interest. The Supreme Court allowed the second respondent's appeal and remitted the matter, resulting in a consent judgment of 4 February 1998 whereby the second respondent transferred the lease title to the first respondent. The appellant later filed HCCS No.160/99 seeking declarations that the sale was void and that the lease had terminated by re-entry, and applied for a temporary injunction. The High Court, in a ruling of 20 June 2002, held most issues res judicata and, on 19 May 2003, dismissed the injunction application.

Issues

1. Whether the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence of termination of the respondents' leases by the appellant's re-entry when dismissing the application for a temporary injunction.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in substantially disposing of the main suit while ruling on the application for a temporary injunction.
3. Whether the appellant, having sold his Mailo interest and not appealed the earlier res judicata ruling, retained an interest in the suit property warranting an injunction.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondents both in the Court of Appeal and in the court below.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (1)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 37 rules 1, 2 and 9

Cases cited (3)

• Civil Application No.50/03
• HCCS No.31/93
• HCCS No.32/93

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