Share
Kiggundu v Kaddu (Miscellaneous Application 74 of 2024) [2024] UGHCFD 30 (1 July 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] UGHCFD 30
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Family Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Komuhangi, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 74 of 2024
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Family Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Komuhangi, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 74 of 2024
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the reliefs sought in the present application had already been conclusively determined in Miscellaneous Applications 1515 of 2023 and 1450 of 2023, involving the same parties and issues. Applying Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held that the matter was res judicata, as the issues had been directly and substantially in issue in previous proceedings and had been finally decided by a competent court. Consequently, the application for stay of execution was dismissed as it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Court disposition
application dismissed as res judicata with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application is dismissed for being res judicata.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent.
02
Material facts
Parties
Erick Kiggundu
Applicant Counsel: Mr. Isaac Isabirye (holding brief for Mr. Charles Serunjogi, Solace Advocates)Teddy Kyeyune Kaddu
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Lasto Byabakama, Tamale & Co. Advocates03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for stay of execution is maintainable in light of previous decisions on the same issues.
- 02
Whether the matter is res judicata.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought a stay of execution of EMA No. 0024 of 2023 pending the hearing and disposal of HCM No. 1515 of 2023 and the main appeal to the Court of Appeal (CACA No. 1527 of 2024), arguing that the relief was necessary to preserve the subject matter of the appeal.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposed the application, contending that the issues raised had already been conclusively determined in previous miscellaneous applications between the same parties, and that the application was therefore barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 7, Civil Procedure Act
A court shall not try any suit or issue that has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties and has been finally decided by a competent court (res judicata).
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the reliefs sought in the present application had already been conclusively determined in Miscellaneous Applications 1515 of 2023 and 1450 of 2023, involving the same parties and issues. Applying Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held that the matter was res judicata, as the issues had been directly and substantially in issue in previous proceedings and had been finally decided by a competent court. Consequently, the application for stay of execution was dismissed as it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Court disposition
application dismissed as res judicata with costs to the respondent
- The application is dismissed for being res judicata.
- Costs are awarded to the respondent.
Source and reliance status
HC: Family Division (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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
HC: Family Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA (FAMILY DIVISION) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 0074 OF 2024 5 (ARISING OUT EMA NO. 0024 OF 2023, HCMA NO. 0542 of 2023 AND DIVORCE CAUSE NO. 0002 OF 2018)
ERICK KIGGUNDU================================APPLICANT
VERSUS
10 TEDDY KYEYUNE KADDU========================RESPONDENT
BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE ALICE KOMUHANGI KHAUKHA RULING
Introduction
15 This is a Ruling in respect of an Application by Notice of Motion for Orders that:
(a) A stay of execution of EMA No. 0024 of 2023 be issued pending the hearing and disposal of HCM No. 1515 of 2023 and the main Appeal to the Court of Appeal vide CACA No. 1527 of 2024; and
(b)The costs of this Application be provided for.
Representation
When the Application came up for hearing, the Applicant was represented by Mr. Isaac Isabirye holding brief for Mr. Charles Serunjogi from Solace Advocates. The Respondent was represented by Mr. Lasto Byabakama from Tamale & Co.
25 Advocates.
Court's Decision
Upon thorough perusal of the Application and the reliefs sought, I find that the same have been conclusively determined in Miscellaneous Applications 1515 of 2023 and Miscellaneous Application No. 1450 of 2023.
Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that:
*"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 between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent*
10 *to try the subsequent suit in which the issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by that Court."*
This Application is therefore dismissed for being res judicata with costs to the Respondent.
Dated at Kampala this 1st day of July 2024.
............................................
Alice Komuhangi Khaukha
20 JUDGE
01/07/2024
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.