[2010] UGCommC 19

[2010] UGCommC 19

The court found that the parties and subject matter in the present suit and the previous suit are the same, and the consent judgment in the earlier suit was in full and final settlement of the dispute, including issues arising from the contract and its addendum. The court applied Explanation 4 to Section 7 of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] UGCommC 19
Parties
Plaintiff: Bansangira Building Contractors (1977) Ltd; Defendant: Attorney General
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CC-CS 330 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
suit dismissed with costs
Judges
Obura, J
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Limitation of Actions, Breach of Contract, Consent Judgment
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Res Judicata Limitation of Actions Breach of Contract Consent Judgment

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bansangira Building Contractors (1977) Ltd

Plaintiff

Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the suit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to a prior consent judgment between the same parties.
  2. 2 Whether the suit is time-barred under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the parties and subject matter in the present suit and the previous suit are the same, and the consent judgment in the earlier suit was in full and final settlement of the dispute, including issues arising from the contract and its addendum. The court applied Explanation 4 to Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, holding that any matter which might and ought to have been raised in the earlier suit is deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue. The court further held that the cause of action arose in 2004 when the IGG report recommended cancellation of the contract, not in 2008 as argued by the plaintiff. As the suit was filed in 2009, it was outside the...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant.