Wakilii

Tullow Uganda Limited & Anor v Wabyona (Miscellaneous Application No. 393 of 2020)

High Court · [2020] UGCOMMC 24 · 2020 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out plaint in underlying civil suit for failure to disclose cause of action and for being barred by law
Decision
Plaint struck out as against the applicants

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

Held that the plaint in HCCS No. 296 of 2020 was res judicata and barred by lis alibi pendens because the same matters had been decided in HCCA No. 19 of 2014 and were pending in HCMA No. 137 of 2017. The respondent failed to demonstrate locus standi for a public interest suit as he did not exhaust other remedies or particularise allegations of corruption and fraud. Application allowed and plaint struck out.

Outcome

Plaint struck out as against the applicants

Facts

The respondent filed HCCS No. 296 of 2020 as a public interest suit under Article 17 of the Constitution seeking to invalidate a Settlement Deed executed on 18 June 2015 between Tullow Uganda Limited, Tullow Uganda Operations Pty Ltd, Uganda Revenue Authority, and the Government of Uganda. The Settlement Deed resolved a tax dispute arising from Tullow's farm down of interests, reducing tax liability from USD 542,793,821 to USD 250,000,000 pursuant to a consent order in High Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2014. The respondent alleged the Settlement Deed was illegal because it waived taxes without parliamentary approval under Article 152(2) of the Constitution and section 35 of the Public Finance Management Act 2015, and involved corruption and fraud. The respondent had previously filed HCMA No. 137 of 2017 seeking to review the consent decree. The applicants moved to strike out the plaint for being res judicata, lis pendens, and failing to disclose a cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint in HCCS No. 296 of 2020 is res judicata in light of the decree in High Court Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2014.
  2. Whether the plaint in HCCS No. 296 of 2020 is barred by the lis alibi pendens rule given the pending HCMA No. 137 of 2017.
  3. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.
  4. Whether the respondent has locus standi to bring a public interest suit under Article 17 of the Constitution.
  5. Whether allegations of corruption and fraud are sufficiently particularised in the plaint.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The plaint in High Court Civil Suit No. 296 of 2020 struck out for not disclosing a cause of action and being barred by the lis pendens rule.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Same Matter Directly and Substantially in Issue
A suit is res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act where the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties litigating under the same title and has been heard and finally decided by a competent court.
Civil Procedure — Lis Alibi Pendens — Pending Suit on Same Matter
Under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, no court shall proceed with a suit where the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties pending in a court having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, even if the number of parties differs between the suits.
Constitutional Law — Public Interest Litigation — Locus Standi Requirements
To establish locus standi for a public interest suit under Article 17 of the Constitution, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he is a citizen, has sufficient interest and is not a mere busybody, that the issue is sufficiently grave and of public importance, that it involves a high constitutional principle, and that he has exhausted other remedies to protect the public interest without success.
Constitutional Law — Public Interest Suits — Exhaustion of Remedies
A plaintiff bringing a public interest suit must demonstrate what steps he has taken to protect and preserve the public property in question and that those steps did not lead to a remedy before filing an ordinary suit.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Fraud and Corruption Particulars
Where a plaint alleges corruption and fraud, those allegations must be particularised and itemised with sufficient detail to disclose a cause of action; general or unparticularised allegations are insufficient and render the plaint liable to be struck out.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (5)

  • Kikungwe Issa and 4 Others v Standard Bank Investment Corporation and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 394/395 of 2004)
  • Hon. Abdu Katuntu and Another v MTN Uganda Ltd and 6 Others (HCCS No. 248 of 2012)
  • Auto Garage vs Motokov
  • Mayanja Hussein v Mubiru Christopher (Civil Suit No. 129 of 2010)
  • Fredrick JK Zaabwe v Orient Bank and 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)

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.

Tullow Uganda Limited & Anor v Wabyona (Miscellaneous Application No. 393 of 2020) [2020] UGCommC 24 (14 July 2020)
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.