Download

Uganda Judgment

High Court of Uganda

Mafabi v Mash Investments Limited & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 236 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1061 (7 November 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that while the respondents raised serious preliminary objections regarding the competence and maintainability of the application—including claims of res judicata, functus officio, and lack of imminent threat—these issues are intertwined with the substantive merits of the main application. The court determined that the preliminary objections could not dispose of the application at this stage and should be considered together with the main application. Accordingly, the court fixed the main application for hearing and extended the existing administrative restraint order to preserve the status quo until the hearing date.

Court disposition

Preliminary objections not disposed of separately; main application fixed for hearing; interim order extended.

Orders

  • The main application is fixed for hearing on 12th November 2024 at 2pm.
  • The administrative restraint order is extended to 12th November 2024.
  • Parties are advised to be ready to proceed with the main application.

02

Material facts

Parties

Gregory Gidagui Mafabi

Applicant Counsel: Nangulu Edmond

Mash Investments Limited

Respondent

Francis Mashate Wanduyi

Respondent

Nambula Stephen Mukhwana

Respondent Counsel: Nappa Geoffrey; Eric Kiingi

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Miscellaneous Application / Preliminary Objections Ruling; Main Application Fixed for Hearing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant contends that there is a pending appeal in the Court of Appeal and that execution of the judgment and orders in Civil Suit No. 15 of 2021 should be stayed to preserve the status quo. The applicant argues that there is an imminent threat of eviction or interference with user rights over the suit land, and that restraining orders are necessary to prevent irreparable harm pending the appeal.
Respondent
The 3rd respondent argues that the application is incurably defective as it arises from a matter already determined, is res judicata, and that the court is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction. The respondent further contends that the applicant irregularly acquired an administrative restraint order and that there is no imminent threat to justify a stay of execution.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 43 rules 1-4, Civil Procedure Rules SI.71; case law on preliminary objections

    A court must first determine preliminary objections that go to jurisdiction or competence before addressing the merits of an application.

  2. 02

    Section 7, Civil Procedure Act Cap 71

    The doctrine of res judicata bars re-litigation of matters already finally determined by a competent court.

  3. 03

    Common law doctrine; Section 98, Civil Procedure Act Cap 71

    A court becomes functus officio after delivering its final decision and cannot revisit the matter except as provided by law.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that while the respondents raised serious preliminary objections regarding the competence and maintainability of the application—including claims of res judicata, functus officio, and lack of imminent threat—these issues are intertwined with the substantive merits of the main application. The court determined that the preliminary objections could not dispose of the application at this stage and should be considered together with the main application. Accordingly, the court fixed the main application for hearing and extended the existing administrative restraint order to preserve the status quo until the hearing date.

Obiter and limits

  • Some issues raised as preliminary objections are matters the court is duty-bound to interrogate in the main application, such as the existence of a pending suit and imminent threat of execution.
  • The administrative order restraining interference with the suit land is extended to maintain the status quo pending the hearing of the main application.

Court disposition

Preliminary objections not disposed of separately; main application fixed for hearing; interim order extended.

  • The main application is fixed for hearing on 12th November 2024 at 2pm.
  • The administrative restraint order is extended to 12th November 2024.
  • Parties are advised to be ready to proceed with the main application.

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

[2024] UGHC 1061

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT UGANDA HOLDEN AT MBALE

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.236 OF 2024

(ARISING FROM LAND SUIT NO. 15 OF 2021)

GREGORY GIDAGUI MAFABI ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

VERSUS

1. MASH INVESTMENTS LIMITED

2. FRANCIS MASHATE WANDUYI

<table> 3. NAMBULA STEPHEN MUKHWANA :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BEFORE HON. JUSTICE LUBEGA FAROUQ

RULING

Introduction

- 2. This application was brought by way of Chamber Summons under section 37 of the Judicature Act Cap 16, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 282, order 43 rules 1-4 and order 52 rules 1-9 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI.71 for orders that- - (a) Execution of judgment and orders issued in Civil Suit No.15 of 2021 be stayed pending determination the Court of Appeal Civil Appeal Gregory Gidagui Mafabi V. Mash Investments & 2 Others; - (b) The status quo of the suit land be maintained and the Respondents be restrained from in any way entering or interfering with the Applicant's user rights or evicting the Applicant from the suit land and property pending the determination of Court of Appeal Civil Appeal, Gregory Gidagui Mafabi V. Mash Investments & 2 Others; - (c) The Respondents are prohibited/restrained from alienating, disposing, selling, transferring, creating any third party rights/interests or in any way dealing with the legal status of the suit land and property pending the determination of Court of Appeal Civil Appeal, Gregory Gidagui Mafabi Vs. Mash Investments & 2 Others: and

$\mathbf{1}$

(d) Costs of the application be provided for.

3. This application is supported by the affidavit in support sworn by the Applicant and opposed by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent in his affidavit in reply.

4. Legal Representation

- 5. Counsel Nangulu Edmond appeared for the Applicant, while counsel Nappa Geoffrey together with Counsel Eric Kiingi appeared for the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent. The $1^{st}$ and $2^{nd}$ Respondents were unrepresented. - 6. At the hearing of this application, before court could grant schedules to the parties to file their respective submissions, counsel for the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent intimated to court that they have serious preliminary objections which warrant court's determination before deriving into the merits of this application. - 7. This court found it prudent to determine the preliminary objections of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Respondent first before determination of the merits of the main application. - 8. The parties requested court to proceed by way of written submissions which was granted by this court and all the parties complied.

9. Preliminary objections

- (a) That the application is incurably defective arising out of an already *determined suit or matter;* - (b) That the Applicant irregularly acquired an administrative restraint order; - (c) That Miscellaneous Application No. 236 of 2024 is Res judicata; - (d) That Court is functus officio lacking jurisdiction to entertain the instant *Application;* - *(e) That no imminent threat to warrant a stay of execution.* - I have however interrogated the submissions of the parties on the stated 10. preliminary objections and found that they cannot dispose of the main application given its nature. - Secondly, some of the issues raised as preliminary objections, are matters 11. which this court is under a duty to interrogate in the main application. Like; the issue of whether there is a pending suit or not and the issue of whether there is imminent threat of execution. These are matters for determination in the main application.

- In the circumstance, I will determine the said preliminary objections in the 12. main application which I have fixed for hearing on 12<sup>th</sup> November 2024 at 2pm. The administrative order that was issued expiring today the 7<sup>th</sup> November 2014 is here extended to 12<sup>th</sup> November 2024. - You are advised to come ready to proceed with the main application. 13.

LUBEGA ROUO Ag. JUDGE

Ruling delivered to the emails of the advocates of the parties this $7<sup>th</sup>$ day of November 2024.

at a staff third part

$\mathfrak{Z}$

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 37, Judicature Act Cap 16

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Section 98, Civil Procedure Act Cap 71

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 43 rules 1-4, Civil Procedure Rules SI.71

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Order 52 rules 1-9, Civil Procedure Rules SI.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.