Share
Twagira v Mayengo and Another (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1047 OF 2024) [2024] UGHCLD 301 (1 October 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] UGHCLD 301
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kazaarwe, J
- Case number
- MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1047 OF 2024
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- HC: Land Division (Uganda)
- Panel
- Kazaarwe, J
- Case number
- MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1047 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 issues raised in Civil Suit No. 1074 of 2020 had already been directly and substantially determined in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2020. In that appeal, the court held that Amazon Enterprises Limited was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of fraud and that the parties from whom the respondent derived his claim had no valid interest in the suit land. The respondent's claim, based on a sale agreement executed by those same parties, was thus extinguished by the prior judgment. The court held that the respondent, as a person deriving title from parties to the previous suit, is bound by the earlier decision. Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata applied, barring the present suit from being tried again.
Court disposition
application allowed; suit dismissed as res judicata
Orders
- Civil Suit No. 1074 of 2020 is dismissed on grounds of res judicata.
- Costs are awarded to the applicants.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mayengo John Musoke
ApplicantAmazon Enterprises Limited
ApplicantPeter Simon Twagira
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether Civil Suit No. 1074 of 2020 is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
- 02
Whether the issues in Civil Suit No. 1074 of 2020 were directly and substantially in issue in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2020.
- 03
Whether the respondent, deriving title from parties in the previous suit, is bound by the earlier decision.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that Civil Suit No. 1074 of 2020 is res judicata because the issues and subject matter were already determined in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2020, where the court found Amazon Enterprises Limited to be a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of fraud and declared the previous claimants, including those from whom the respondent derives title, as trespassers. They contended that the respondent is bound by the previous judgment as he claims through parties to that suit.
- Respondent
- The respondent, Peter Simon Twagira, maintained that his claim was based on an equitable interest (Kibanja) acquired from the administrators of the estate of the late Jesca Nabuwaya, and that his cause of action was distinct from the issues previously litigated. He argued that the sale agreement and his interest were not fully adjudicated in the prior proceedings.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 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 between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try the subsequent suit, and has been heard and finally decided by that court.
- 02
Doctrine of res judicata; Section 7, Civil Procedure Act Cap 71
A person deriving title from a party to a previous suit is bound by the decision in that suit if the matter was directly and substantially in issue and finally decided.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the issues raised in Civil Suit No. 1074 of 2020 had already been directly and substantially determined in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2020. In that appeal, the court held that Amazon Enterprises Limited was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of fraud and that the parties from whom the respondent derived his claim had no valid interest in the suit land. The respondent's claim, based on a sale agreement executed by those same parties, was thus extinguished by the prior judgment. The court held that the respondent, as a person deriving title from parties to the previous suit, is bound by the earlier decision. Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata applied, barring the present suit from being tried again.
Obiter and limits
- A plain reading of the sale agreement indicates that it is the registered land which was subject of the sale, not merely an equitable interest.
- The court's decision in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2020 stripped the administrators of any authority to deal in the suit land, which is registered land.
Court disposition
application allowed; suit dismissed as res judicata
- Civil Suit No. 1074 of 2020 is dismissed on grounds of res judicata.
- Costs are awarded to the applicants.
Source and reliance status
HC: Land 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: Land Division (Uganda)
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC. OF UGANDA <sup>5</sup> IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (LAND DTVTSTON) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1047 OF 2024 (AR|S|NG FROM CtVtL SU|T NO. 1074 OF 2020, PETER SIMON TWAGIRA -VS- JOHN MAYENGO & AMAZON ENTERPRISES LIMITED) 10 1. MAYENGO JOHN MUSOKE 2. AMAZON ENTERPRISES LIMI .-.-. APPLICANTS -vs. 15 Before: Hon. Ladv Justice Olive Kazaarwe Mukwava /z x.
RULING
This application is premised on a Preliminary Point of law that uit No. 107
is res judicata. 20
Backqround to the Preliminarv Point of Law
On the 28th lvlarch 2024, this Cou( delivered its Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 63 o12020 The Appellant was Amazon Enterprises Limited and the Respondents were six (6) in number. They included N,4r. Kisiira John Baptist and l\ilr Byabagambe Yusufu.
<sup>25</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 lrespassers on the suit land.
s Civil Suit No <sup>1074</sup>of 2020 was tiled by Mr. Peter Simon Twagira against Wambuzi Charles, Kisira John Baptist, Namukasa Robinah, Byabagambe Yusufu, John Mayengo, Amazon Enterprises Ltd, Kigozi Samuel, Musoke Azimaveni and the Commissioner Land Registration.
10 On 29th June 2022, l\,1r. Twagira filed an amended plaint retaining only two (2) out of the original nine (9) initial Defendants. The two Defendants are Mr. John Mayengo and Amazon Enterprises Ltd.
Determination bv the Court
Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act cap 282 provides
7- Res judicata
- 15 No couti 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 pafties, or between padies under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a coui competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which the issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by that court. - 20 According to paragraph 4.1 of the amended plaint in Civil Suit No. 1074 of 2020, the Plaintiffs cause of action arose as follows;
"That on 20h December 2004. the Administrators and beneficiaries of the estate of the late Jesca Nabuwaya sold to the Plaintiff equitable interest (Kibanja) of land measuring 75ft by 25ft and now forming paft of land described as Kyadondo Block 254 Plot 884
25 located at Nabutiti, Kasanga Ggaba road (herein after refened to as the suit land Kbanja)"
A perusal of the Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2020 at page 1 , under the first ground of appeal, describes the 2nd and 4th Respondents, Mr Kisiira John Baptist and Mr. Wambuzi Charles as beneficiat owners of the estate property of the late Jessica Nabuwaya.
30 The first ground of appeal was whether the 2nd and 4rh Respondents had <sup>a</sup> laMul/equitable interest in the suit land as beneficial owners of the estate of the late <sup>5</sup> Jessica Nabuwaya. The suit land is described at page 5 of the Judgment at line 30 as "the propeiy comprised in Kyadondo Block 254 Plots 884 at Kasanga and Nabutiti".
This Court, as stated earlier, found that the 2nd and 4th Respondents had no claim of ownership whatsoever on the suit land.
Mr. Peter Simon Twagira's sale agreement, upon which he purchased the suit land, the subject matter of Civil Suit No. '1074 of 2020, is marked Annexure 'A' to the plaint. lt is dated 20rh December 2004. The signatories are Mr. Kisiira John Baptist (Administrator) and l\4r. Wambuzi Charles (Administrator). The subject matter of the agreement is land located at Kasanga (Nabutiti) described as Kyadondo Block 254 Plot 884 land on Ggaba road measuring 25ft x 76ft. 10
It is a fact that the Court's decision in Civil Apoeal No. 63 of 2020 stripped N/r. Kisaira John Baptist and Mr. Wambuzi of any authority to deal in the suit land, which is registered land. 15
While Mr. Peter Simon Twagira, who derives his claim to the suit land from them describes the suit land as a 'Kibanja 'or an equitable interest, the land sale agreement upon which he acquired the interest makes no mention of an equitable interest. A plain reading of the agreement indicates that it is the registered land which was subject of the sale.
I agree with the Applicants that Civil Suit No. '1074 of 2020 is res judicata. The issues raised in that suit have been heard and finally decided by this Court. And the Respondent, Mr. Twagira, as a person deriving his claim from one of the parties to Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2020. is bound by this Court s decision.
ln conclusion, luphold the preliminary objection. This application is allowed. <sup>I</sup> hereby dismiss Civil Suit No. 1074 ol2020 on grounds of res judicata, with costs to the Ap icants. 25
2A
Olive Kazaanve Mukwaya JUDGE 30th April 2025 30
Delivered by Eccmis to Counsel for the Parties. $\mathsf{S}$ $\bullet$
$\mathcal{Z}^{\mathcal{S}}_{\mathcal{S}}$
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.