[2025] UGHC 191

### **THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MASAKA CIVIL SUIT NO. 0100 OF 2014**

### **1. MASAKA DISTRICT FARMERS ASSOCIATION**

- **2. KIMULI KIGGUNDU VICENT** - **3. DDAMULIRA MAYANJA JOSEPH**::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: **PLAINTIFFS**

### **VERSUS**

- **1. MWANJE RESTY** - **2. HAJJI ISAAC SSEMUJJU** - **3. KIRANGWA BERNARD** - **4. NSAMBA MUHAMMED** - **5. BUKENYA BAJJABEGONZA** - **6. MUGERA M. JOHN**:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::**DEFENDANTS**

## **BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE LAWRENCE TWEYANZE**

# **JUDGMENT**

### **Introduction**

- 1. This matter arises from Civil Suit No. 0100 of 2014, instituted by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs, initially comprising the Masaka District Farmers Association (hereinafter "the Association" or "1st Plaintiff"), Kimuli Kiggundu Vicent (2nd Plaintiff), and Ddamulira Mayanja Joseph (3rd Plaintiff), sought several declaratory and injunctive remedies concerning the management and leadership of the Association. The suit challenges the legality of elections held on 23rd November 2012, which purportedly installed the Defendants as the Association's executive board, and seeks accountability for alleged mismanagement, general damages, and costs. - 2. However, a significant development occurred when, by a letter dated 9th August 2019, the Association, through its Secretary, formally notified this Court that it had not authorised the institution of this suit and expressly withdrew its participation as a 1 st Plaintiff. Consequently, the suit proceeded with only the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, though the 3rd Plaintiff's whereabouts

Page **1** of **6**

remained unknown, and only the 2nd Plaintiff actively participated in the proceedings.

3. The Defendants, represented by Counsel, contested the suit, raising preliminary objections and defending the legality of the elections that brought them into office. This judgment addresses the preliminary objections and the substantive issues framed for determination, based on the evidence adduced, submissions filed, and applicable law.

# **The Plaintiffs' Case**

- 4. The Plaintiffs' claim, as originally pleaded, sought: A declaration that the elections appointing the Defendants as the new Board were null and void; A declaration that the Defendants usurped the powers and management of the Association contrary to its Constitution; An order compelling the Defendants to account for losses incurred by the Association since their alleged usurpation; general damages; and costs of the suit. - 5. The 2nd Plaintiff, Kimuli Kiggundu Vicent, testified as PW1, asserting that the Defendants conducted irregular elections in November 2012 without following the Association's Constitution, particularly by bypassing the procedural requirements for grassroots elections as advised by the Registrar General. He alleged that the Defendants forged documents to deceive District authorities, usurped his role as the duly elected Secretary General, and mismanaged the Association's affairs, including retaining a Motorcycle belonging to the Association. Efforts to resolve the dispute internally, including police involvement, proved futile, leading to this litigation. - 6. As noted earlier, a critical development emerged during the proceedings when the Association disowned the suit via its 2019 letter, asserting that the 2 nd and 3rd Plaintiffs lacked authority to represent it. This withdrawal shifted the focus to the individual claims of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs, though the 3rd Plaintiff's absence rendered his participation nominal.

# **The Defendants' Case**

7. The Defendants maintained that the elections held on 23rd November 2012 were lawful, regular, fair, and free, presided over by the Chief Administrative Officer, and conducted in accordance with Article 21 of the

Page **2** of **6**

Association's Constitution. They denied allegations of forgery, fraud, or impersonation, asserting that the 2nd Plaintiff illegally retained Association property, including its office stamp and Motorcycle registration cards.

8. The 1st Defendant, Mwanje Resty (DW1), and the 6th Defendant, Mugera M. John (DW2), testified that they are no longer in office, having been succeeded by four subsequent Farmer's Assemblies since 2014, each serving the constitutionally mandated three-year term under Article 21(h) of the 1st Plaintiff's Articles Association. They further submitted that several Co-Defendants have passed away, underscoring the passage of time and the mootness of the dispute.

# **Representation and hearing**

9. The Plaintiffs were initially represented by M/s Serwadda & Co. Advocates and later by M/s Kitimbo Associated Advocates. The Defendants were jointly represented by M/s Mulindwa & Co. Advocates and M/s Alaka & Co. Advocates. At the hearing, only the 2nd Plaintiff appeared and testified, while the 1st and 6th Defendants provided evidence for the defence. The Court notes the absence of the 3rd Plaintiff and the reported demise of some Defendants, which further shaped the proceedings.

# **Issues for Determination**

- 10. Pursuant to the Joint Scheduling Memorandum filed on 26th September 2017, the following issues were framed for the Court's determination: - *1. Whether the Defendants are lawfully occupying the office of the 1st Plaintiff; and* - *2. What remedies, if any, are available to the parties.* - 11. However, the Defendants raised four preliminary objections, which this Court must first address: - a. The suit is a moot and overtaken by events; - b. The suit is a moot due to the non-inclusion of the Association as a Defendant; - c. The suit is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, and an abuse of Court process, disclosing no cause of action; and - d. The suit was instituted without the Association's authority, rendering the 1st Plaintiff's inclusion fraudulent and illegal, warranting its striking out.

Page **3** of **6**

## **Analysis and Determination**

## **Preliminary Objections**

- 12. The doctrine of mootness is a fundamental principle of judicial practice, rooted in the requirement that Courts adjudicate only live controversies with practical consequences. In *Julius Maganda vs. National Resistance Movement* **(***HCMC No. 154 of 2010***),** Court held that "*Courts of law do not decide cases where no live disputes between parties exist… Court orders must have practical effects and cannot issue where the issues in dispute have been removed or no longer exist*." Similarly, in *Pine Pharmacy Ltd & 8 Ors vs. National Drug Authority* **(***MA No. 142 of 2016***)**, it was affirmed that a case becomes moot when events subsequent to its commencement eliminate the controversy affecting the parties' rights. - 13. The uncontroverted evidence of the 1st and 6th Defendants establishes that the elections challenged in this suit occurred on 23rd November 2012, and the Defendants' tenure, governed by Article 21(h) of the Association's Constitution/ Articles of Association (stipulating a three-year term), expired by November 2015. Since then, it implies that three successive Farmer's Assemblies have managed the Association's affairs, rendering the Defendants' occupancy of office a historical, and not a current issue. The analogy to challenging the late Milton Obote's presidency of 1966 in 2015, as submitted by the Defendants, aptly illustrates the temporal disconnect. - 14. Furthermore, the Association's withdrawal from the suit in 2019, coupled with the absence of evidence that the Defendants currently hold office, extinguishes any live dispute. The 2nd Plaintiff's assertion that the Defendants remain in leadership is unsupported by credible evidence and is contradicted by the Defendants' testimony, which went unchallenged during cross-examination. The demise of some Defendants further underscores the futility of adjudicating their alleged occupancy of office. - 15. The Plaintiffs' Counsel relied on *Macfoy vs. United Africa Co. Ltd* **[1961] 1 All E. R. 116**, arguing that the Defendants' actions were void ab initio and should be declared as such. That while the principle that a void act requires no Court order to be nullified is sound, its application presupposes a live controversy. In this case before me, the passage of time and changes in

Page **4** of **6**


leadership have rendered such a declaration academic, with no practical effect on the parties or the Association.

- 16. The Court also considers the Association's status. Its withdrawal as a Plaintiff, without its inclusion as a Defendant, leaves a critical party absent from a dispute concerning its governance. *Order 1 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules* provides that no suit shall be defeated by misjoinder or non-joinder, and the Court may adjudicate the rights of parties before it. However, where the absence of a necessary party, such as the Association, goes to the root of the claim as it does here, the suit cannot proceed effectively. The 2nd Plaintiff's failure to amend the Plaint to address this deficiency further weakens his case. - 17. In *Minex Karia vs. Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 208 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 66*, Court emphasized that a suit is academic if it lacks practical utility, is theoretical, or speculative, unsupported by facts. The remedies sought by the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs which include; declarations of nullity, accounting, and damages target a leadership that no longer exists, rendering the suit hypothetical and incapable of enforcement. The case of Environment *Action Network Ltd vs. Joseph Eryau (Court of Appeal. Civil Application No.98/05)* reinforces that Courts refrain from deciding cases where no live dispute persists. - 18. This Court's role is to adjudicate actual disputes with enforceable outcomes, not to engage in academic exercises. The evidence demonstrates that the Defendants no longer occupy the offices in question, and the Association has undergone significant leadership changes since 2014. The suit, initiated in 2014, has been rendered nugatory by these events, and the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs' claims lack a viable target. Accordingly, the Court finds the suit moot, overtaken by events, and incapable of resolution due to the absence of a live controversy. The preliminary objections succeed, and it is unnecessary to address the remaining issues or the substantive merits of the case. - 19. For the foregoing reasons, the suit is dismissed. Given that the dismissal arises from events beyond the parties' control where the suit has been in the system since 2014 when it was filed in this Court, no order as to costs is made, and each party shall bear its own costs.

Page **5** of **6**

20. Orders:

- a. The suit is hereby dismissed. - b. Each party shall bear its own costs.

It is so ordered.

Judgment delivered electronically at Masaka this 20th day of April 2025.

………………………………………

**LAWRENCE TWEYANZE JUDGE 20th April 2025**