Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Amazon Enterprises Limited and Another v Byabagambe and Another (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2898 OF 2024) [2025] UGHC 243 (30 April 2025)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the issues raised in Civil Suit No. 764 of 2024 were directly and substantially the same as those determined in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2020. The parties in both suits were either the same or litigating under the same title, specifically regarding the ownership and entitlement to Kyadondo Block 254 Plots 884 at Nabutiti Kasanga. The court had previously determined that the applicants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of fraud and that the respondents had no claim of ownership and were trespassers. As such, the doctrine of res judicata applied, barring the respondents from relitigating the same issues. The preliminary objection was upheld, and Civil Suit No. 764 of 2024 was dismissed with costs to the applicants.

Court disposition

preliminary objection upheld; suit dismissed as res judicata

Orders

  • Civil Suit No. 764 of 2024 is dismissed on grounds of res judicata.
  • Costs awarded to the applicants.

02

Material facts

Parties

Amazon Enterprises Limited

Applicant

Mayengo John Musoke

Applicant

Byabagambe Yusuf

Respondent

Kisira John Baptist

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants argued that Civil Suit No. 764 of 2024 is res judicata because the issues regarding ownership and entitlement to the suit land, Kyadondo Block 254 Plots 884 at Nabutiti Kasanga, were conclusively determined in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2020. They contended that the respondents, as administrators and beneficiaries of the estate of the late Nabuwaya Jesca, had their claims adjudicated and dismissed, and thus cannot relitigate the same matters.
Respondent
The respondents, as administrators of the estate of the late Nabuwaya Jesca, filed Civil Suit No. 764 of 2024 asserting their rights as beneficiaries to the suit land. They claimed a cause of action based on their beneficial ownership and sought to challenge the applicants' title, despite the prior judgment.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 7, Civil Procedure Act Cap 71

    No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or parties under whom they claim, litigating under the same title, and has been heard and finally decided by a competent court.

  2. 02

    Doctrine of res judicata; Section 7, Civil Procedure Act Cap 71

    A matter is res judicata if it has been conclusively determined by a competent court between the same parties or their privies, and cannot be reopened.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the issues raised in Civil Suit No. 764 of 2024 were directly and substantially the same as those determined in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2020. The parties in both suits were either the same or litigating under the same title, specifically regarding the ownership and entitlement to Kyadondo Block 254 Plots 884 at Nabutiti Kasanga. The court had previously determined that the applicants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of fraud and that the respondents had no claim of ownership and were trespassers. As such, the doctrine of res judicata applied, barring the respondents from relitigating the same issues. The preliminary objection was upheld, and Civil Suit No. 764 of 2024 was dismissed with costs to the applicants.

Obiter and limits

  • A finding which stripped Mr. Kisiira John Baptist and Mr. Byabagambe Yusuf of any authority to deal in the suit land.
  • The issues raised in Civil Suit No. 764 of 2024 have been heard and finally decided by this Court.

Court disposition

preliminary objection upheld; suit dismissed as res judicata

  • Civil Suit No. 764 of 2024 is dismissed on grounds of res judicata.
  • Costs awarded to the applicants.

Source and reliance status

High Court of Uganda

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court of Uganda

Judgment

[2025] UGHC 243

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANOA AT KAMPALA

(LAND OTVTSTON)

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 2898 OF 2024

(ARISING FROM CIVIL SUIT NO.764OF 20241

<sup>10</sup> . I. AMAZON ENTERPRISES LIMITED

2. MAYENGO JOHN MUSOKE----------------------------------APPLICANTS

-vs-

1, BYABAGAMBE YUSUF

2. KISIRA JOHN BAPTIST RESPONDENTS

<sup>15</sup> (Administrators of the Estate of the Late Nabuwaya Jesca)

Before: Hon. Ladv Justice Olive Kazaarwe Mukwava

RULING

This Application is premised on a Preliminary Point of law that Civil Suit No.764 2024 20 is res judicata

Backqround to the Preliminarv Point of Law

On the 28rh March 2024, this Court delivered its Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 63 o'f 2020. The Appellant was Amazon Enterprises Limited and the Respondents were six (6) in number. They included Mr. Kisiira John Baptist and Mr' Byabagambe Yusufu, the

25 Respondents.

<sup>5</sup> This Court determined the appeal and found that the Appellant was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of fraud and that all six (6) Respondents were trespassers on the suit land.

Six months after delivery of the judgment, on the 16th August 2024, Civil Suit No. 764 of 2024 was filed by Mr. Kisiira John Baptist and Mr. Byabagambe Yusufu, (Administrators

of the Estate of the Late Nabuwaya Jesca), against Amazon Enterprises Ltd, John Mayengo, Kigozi Samuel, Uganda Registration Services Bureau, the Commissioner Land Registration and the Administrator General. 10

Determinatio bv the Court

Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 provides:

15 7. Res judicata

No court shatl try any suit or lssue in which the matter directly and substantially tn tssue has been directly and substantially in rssue rn a former suit between the same pafties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which the lssue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by that court.

Under Paragraph 2 of the Plaint in Civil Suit No. 764 of 2024 ,-the suit land is-described as Kyadondo Btock 254 Ptots 884 land at Nabutiti Kasanga. And Paragraphs I and 9 of the Plaint in Civil Suit No. 764 ot 2024 , describe the Plaintiff's cause of action and how it arose. Paragraph 9.1 states;

25 'The 1st and 2'd Plaintiffs are among the beneficiaries of the estate of the late Jesca Nabuwaya which estate compised of propefty described as Kyadondo Block 254 Plots 884 land at Nabutiti Kasanga (suit land) among others.'

A perusal of the Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2020 at page 1, under the first ground of appeal, describes the 2nd Respondent there under, Mr. Kisiira John Baptist, as <sup>a</sup> beneficial owner of the estate property of the late Jessica Nabuwaya.

The first ground of appeal was whether the 2nd Respondent had a lawful/equitable interest in the suit land as a beneficial owner of the estate of the late Jessica Nabuwaya. The suit <sup>5</sup> land is described at page 5 of the Judgment at line 30 as "the prcpefty comprised in Kyadondo Block 254 Plots 884 at Kasanga and Nabutiti".

This Court. as stated earlier, found that the Respondents have no claim of ownership whatsoever on the suit land. A finding which stripped Mr. Kisiira John Baptist, and Mr. Byabagambe Yusuf of any authority to deal in the suit land. At page 8 line 31, of this

Court's judgment in Civil Appeal 63 of 2020. this Court found that all Respondents, including Mr. Byabagambe Yusuf, Sth Respondent and Mr. Kisira John Baptist, 2nd Respondent, were trespassers on the suit land. 10

<sup>I</sup>agree with the Applicants that Civil Suit No. 764 of 2024 is res judicata The issues raised in that suit have been heard and finally decided by this Court.

ln conclusion, I uphold the preliminary objection and hereby dismiss civil Suit No. <sup>764</sup>of 2024 on \$ounds of res judicata, with costs to the ApplicanG. 15

2A Olive Kazaarwe Mukwaya JUDGE 30th April 2025 Delivered by Eccmis to Counsel for the Parties'

25

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Section 7, Civil Procedure Act Cap 71

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.