Share
Mafabi v Mash Investments Limited & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 236 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1061 (7 November 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] UGHC 1061
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Lubega, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 236 of 2024
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Lubega, J
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 236 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 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 EdmondMash Investments Limited
RespondentFrancis Mashate Wanduyi
RespondentNambula Stephen Mukhwana
Respondent Counsel: Nappa Geoffrey; Eric Kiingi03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Preliminary Objections Ruling; Main Application Fixed for Hearing
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application is incurably defective as arising from an already determined suit or matter.
- 02
Whether the applicant irregularly acquired an administrative restraint order.
- 03
Whether the application is res judicata.
- 04
Whether the court is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application.
- 05
Whether there is an imminent threat to warrant a stay of execution.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court of Uganda
Judgment
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
$\mathfrak{Z}$
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.