Yusufu Luwalira and Namakula Rashida v Nansubuga Margaret (Miscellaneous Application 1896 of 2024)

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 High Court held that a plaintiff whose suit was dismissed under Order 17 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules for want of prosecution may file a fresh suit rather than seek reinstatement. Non-disclosure of proceedings before the Commissioner for Land Registration does not constitute abuse of court process where the fresh suit is properly instituted. A party aggrieved by the Commissioner for Land Registration's exercise of statutory powers must challenge that decision by way of appeal or judicial review within the prescribed time limits, not by way of counter-claim in a civil suit. The applicants' application to strike out the main suit was dismissed; the counter-claim was struck out as improperly filed and time-barred.

Outcome

Application to strike out main suit dismissed; counter-claim struck out as improperly filed and time-barred; main suit to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The Respondent filed HCCS No. 491 of 2018 against the Applicants and others concerning land comprised in Kyadondo Block 204 Plots 323 and 325 at Kawempe. While that suit was pending, the Respondent pursued a complaint before the Commissioner for Land Registration, who on 28 August 2018 cancelled the names of Kawooya George William and the 1st Applicant from the certificate of title and entered the Respondent as proprietor. HCCS No. 491 of 2018 was subsequently dismissed for want of prosecution under Order 17 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Respondent then filed HCCS No. 005 of 2023 seeking similar reliefs. The Applicants moved to strike out the new suit for abuse of court process, alleging concealment of the earlier suit and the Commissioner's proceedings. The 1st Applicant filed a counter-claim seeking compensation and other reliefs arising from the alleged fraudulent transfer of the land. The Respondent counter-applied to strike out the counter-claim as improperly filed and time-barred.

Issues

1. Whether the Respondent should have reinstated HCCS No. 491 of 2018 instead of filing HCCS No. 005 of 2023?
2. Whether non-disclosure of the proceedings before the Commissioner for Land Registration was an abuse of court process?
3. Whether the counter-claim under HCCS No. 005 of 2023 is properly filed before this court?
4. Whether the counter-claim under HCCS No. 0005 of 2023 was filed out of time?
5. Whether the counter claim was served on the 2nd counter-defendant/Commissioner for Land Registration?
6. Whether the Applicants have locus standi to challenge the cancellation of the name of Kawooya George William on land comprised in Block 204 Plot 323?

Orders

• The Applicants' application is dismissed.
• The counter motion is granted.
• The 1st Applicant's counter-claim under HCCS No. 005/2023 is struck out.
• The Applicants shall pay the costs of this application.
• The costs of the counterclaim struck out shall abide in the outcome of HCCS No. 005/2023.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (23)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 28
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 rule 6(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 17 rule 6(2)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 14
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 rule 16
• Judicature Act s.37
• Land Act Cap 227 s.91(1)
• Land Act Cap 227 s.91(2)
• Land Act Cap 236 s.88(1)
• Land Act Cap 236 s.88(2)
• Land Act Cap 236 s.88(2)(e)
• Land Act Cap 236 s.88(10)
• Land Act Cap 236 s.88(12)
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules SI No. 11 of 2009 rule 2
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules SI No. 11 of 2009 rule 3
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules SI No. 11 of 2009 rule 4
• Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules SI No. 11 of 2009 rule 5
• Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.20

Cases cited (9)

• Mukiibi v Elitek Technologies International Ltd and 4 Others (Civil Suit No. 227 of 2010)
• Hilda Wilson Namusoke and 3 Others v Owalla's Home Investment Trust (EA) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2017)
• Speaker of National Assembly Vs Ngengakaruma (2008) 1 KLR
• Dr Maj (Rtd) Okullo Anthony Jallon v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 383 of 2012)
• Kibugumu Patrick v Aisha Mulungi and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 455 of 2014)
• Petronilla Omal Okoth v Gabriel Obbo Katandi and Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 286 of 2015)
• Richard Lumu Njalebuza v The Society of Catholic Medical Missionaries Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 1944 of 2018)
• Kabangizi Enock v John Katanisa and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0163 of 2022)
• Betuco (U) Ltd Vs Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd & 3 Others, 2018 UGSC 39

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