Sanyu v Post Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 150 of 2023) [2024] UGIC 17 (20 May 2024)


THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 150 OF 2023 *(Arising From LDR. No. 115 Of 2021 & LD No. 145 Of 2021)*

SANYU DICKSON :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::APPLICANT

VERSUS

POST BANK UGANDA LTD::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::RESPONDENT

Before:

The Hon. Mr. Justice Anthony Wabwire Musana

Panelists:

- 1. Hon. Adrine Namara, - 2. Hon. Susan Nabirye & - 3. Hon. Michael Matovu.

Representation:

- *1. Mr. Isaac Tusubira for the Claimant.* - *2. Mr. Conrad Mutungi holding brief for the Respondent.*

RULING

Introduction

- [1] By motion, under the pertinent provisions of the Judicature Act Cap. 13, the Civil Procedure Act Cap. *71(from now CPA),* and the Civil Procedure Rules S.l *71-1(from now CPR),* the Applicant sought a temporary injunction to restrain the Respondent from selling his property comprised in LRV 3124 Plot ¹ Folio 13 land at Sheik Ahamada Road, Masaka Municipality, Masaka Districtffrom *now suit property)* until the final disposal of Labour Dispute Reference No. 115 of 2021. The grounds of the application were that he was employed as the Respondent's Business Growth Manager until he was summarily terminated for poor performance. He also had a salary loan illegally recalled after termination, and his reference was pending before this Court. The Respondent has advertised his property for sale, and it was fair and just for the injunction order to issue. - [2] Mr. Paul Keishaari, the Respondent's Legal Officer, opposed the application. In his affidavit in reply, he was deposed that the application did not meet the basic requirements for granting a temporary injunction. He also pointed out that the Applicant had obtained a temporary injunction in an earlier case, requiring him to deposit 30% of the mortgage sum and that the subsisting order would run for 24 months. He averred that the present application was frivolous and vexatious.

[3] On the 26th of March 2024, we directed the parties to file their written submissions. The Respondent complied, but the court records do not indicate that the Applicant has filed any written submissions. It is trite that submissions are not a basis upon which a Court determines the matter. Still, they are an important opportunity for parties to articulate their respective cases, tie the law with the evidence, and persuade the Court. It is an opportunity that should be well-spent.

Respondent's submissions

- [4] Mr. Mutungi made two points: First, this application offended the *lis pendens* rule. Secondly, the Applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of a temporary injunction. - [5] We propose to deal with the preliminary point on *lis pendens* because under Order 6 rule 29 CPR, if, in the court's opinion, a decision on the point of law substantially disposes of the whole suit, the Court may dismiss the suit or make such other order.

Determination

- [6] The Respondent suggested that this matter offended Section 6 CPA, which provides that no court ought to proceed with the trial of any suit or proceedings in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit or proceeding and or the previously instituted suit or proceedings is between the same parties; and or the suit or proceeding is pending in the same or any other court having jurisdiction to grant the reliefs claimed. In the matter before us, this is already a resolved question. In Sanyu Dickson v Post Bank Uganda Ltd[1](#page-1-0) the Applicant filed an application for an interim order in this Court concerning the present property, having filed, and obtained an interim injunction from the Commercial Division of the High Court restraining the Respondent there, who is the Respondent here, from dealing with the suit property. We found that that application(LDMA 151 of 2023) offended the *lis pendens* rule. - [7] For avoidance of doubt, in Miscellaneous Application No. 1480 of 2022, Sanyu Dickson v Post Bank (U) Ltd, Her Worship Juliet Nakitende, Assistant Registrar at the Commercial Division of the High Court, issued a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent, its agents and or any other person authorized by it from transferring, selling, disposing of and or alienating the property or evicting the

applicant/plaintiff from the suit property, until determination and final disposal of the main suit. The present application is between the same parties, and the applicant seeks a temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from selling the suit property until the final disposal of Labour Dispute Reference No. 115 of 2021. Like in LDMA 151 of 2023, the parties, subject matter by description of the property, and the relief claimed in HCMA 1480 of 2022 and the present application are the same. In effect, the Applicant wishes this Court to injunct already injuncted property. The Applicant's action is an attempt to superimpose one Court order over another subsisting Court order. In Springs International Hotel Ltd v Hotel Diplomate Ltd and Anor[2](#page-1-1) Bashaija J. found filing multiple suits in court potentially to be

<span id="page-1-0"></span>¹ LDMA 150 of 2023

<span id="page-1-1"></span>² H. C. C. S 227 of 2011

an abuse of the Court process. We are not satisfied that we must find that this application does not offend the *lis pendens* rule, and we have not been shown that the circumstances and reasons for the dismissal of LDMA 151 of 2023 have changed in the present application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

[8] As the preliminary point disposes of the application and the Applicant or his Counsel were aware of the existence of the earlier orders of the Commercial Court and this Court, the Respondent shall have 50% of its taxed costs of this application because it has not been put to a very strenuous defence.

i Chambers at Kampala this 20th day of May 2024 Signed

Anthony Wabv\jiire Musana, Musan Judge, Industries Court

The Panelists Agree:

- 1. Hon. Adrine Namara, - 2. Hon. Susan Nabirye & - 3. Hon. Michael Matovu.

Date: 20.05.2024

Time: 12:13 p.m.

Appearances

- 1. For the Applicant: - 2. For the Respondent:

Court Clerk:

Court:

Mr. Kalivayo: Matter is for ruling, and we are ready to receive it. Ruling delivered in open Court.

Anthony VVar Judge, Indu j/e Musana, rial Court

Absent. Mr. Blair Kalivayo. No representative in Court.

Mr. Samuel Mukiza.