[2025] UGHCLD 101

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA LAND DIVISION

# MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 0246 OF 2025 (ARISING FROM HCCS NO.333 OF 2023 AND HCCS NO. 886 OF 2022)

# I. SEMITALA CHARLES

# 2. JANE NAKANYIKE MAYANJA: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :APPLICANTS

VERSUS

l. SSEMUGABI DISAN

# 2. NAKITYO CATE

3. MUTABINGWA TONNY

4. NUCIA INVESTMENT LTD

s. EQUITY BANK UGANDA LIMITED

6. COMMISSIONER LAND REGISTRATION: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : RESPONDENTS

### BEFORE LADY JUSTICE CIIRISTINE I(AAIIWA

### ITUI,ING.

### Introduction.

This application is brought under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, (CPA), Cap282,, Section 33 of the Judicature Act, Cap 16 and Order 11 rule I and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, SI 71- 1 (CPR) for Orders that;

- L The High Court Civil Suit No.333 of 2023 Semitala Charles and Anor vs Ssemugabi Disan and 5 others and High Court Civil Suit No.886 of 2022 Semitala Charles Vs Ssemugabi Disan and 4 others be consolidated. - 2. Costs ofthe application be provided for.

t6\"t\$tt

The application is supported by further grounds in the application which are;

- 1. That on 7th day of October 2022,the l't Applicant filed a suit vide HCCS No. 0886 of 2022 against the l" and 2nd Respondents for recovery of his land Kyadondo Block 82 Plot 931 land at Kungu from trespassing. - 2. That the applicants on the l't of May 2023 filed a suit vide HCCS 333 of 2023 against the respondents before this Honorable Court. - 3. That the remedies sought in both suits include but are not limited to declaration that the 1.t, 2n'i, 3'd and 4th Respondents are trespassers, an order against the 6'h defendants for the cancellation of the 4th defendant from the certificate of title of the suit land and reinstate the 1't Plaintiff, an eviction order against the 1't and 2nd defendant to cede vacant possession of the part of the suit land and permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents interfering with plaintiff s ownership, possession, use or occupation and quiet enjoyment on suit land. - 4. That the subject matter is Kyadondo Block No.82 Plot 931 at Kungu that is in contestation between the Plaintiff and the defendant in HCCS No. 333 of 2023 and HCCS No.886 of 2022 is the same and both suits were filed at The High Court of Uganda, Land Division. - 5. That both suits are in the early stages of adjudication and raise similar questions of law and facts regarding the ownership of Kyadondo Block 82 Plot 931 land at Kungu.

The application is supported by the affidavit of Semitala Charles which I have perused and will not lay out the averments. The Respondents did not file an affidavit in reply.

V/ h\*\ ,^ IBOS b\ ⁰

#### Representation and hearing.

The Applicants were represented by M/s Rock Advocates while the Respondents was not represented. Directions for filing submissions were issued on the 9th May 2025 but only the Applicant filed submissions. The Respondents did not file affidavits in reply.

#### Issue for determination.

Whether the two suits should be consolidated.

#### Submission for the Applicant.

The applicant submitted that under Order 11 rule 1 and 2 of the CPR the court is enjoined to order consolidation of two suits or more suits and have them determined as one suit, as long as there are sufficient grounds forwarded by the applicants and which grounds warrant are purely in favour of such consolidation.

That HCCS 886 of 2022 was filed against all the respondents seeking to recover their land at Kungu comprised in Kyadondo Block No.82 Plot 931. That the land forms the same subject matter in both suits and the Applicants claim in both suits arises from a series of transactions and the issues therein for courts determination are substantially similar. That these would warrant consideration so that courts time can be saved and save the high costs that would arise.

He prayed that the application be allowed.

#### Determination.

\(-- \*\.\ S'n5 \ub

From the onset I observe that the Respondents did not affidavits in reply. It is now trite that where averments in an affidavit are not contested they are deemed to be admitted. See

Order I1rule I of theCPRprovidesthat;

"Where two or more suits are pending in the same court in which the same or similar questions of law are involved, the court may, either upon the application of one of the parties or on its own motion, at its discretion, and upon such terms as may seem fit-

(a)order a consolidation of those suits; and

(b) direct that further proceedings in any of the suits be stayed until further order. "

The court therefore has to take into account the fact the issues raised in the different suits are the same or similar. In HCCS 886 of 2022 the claim is for trespass on Kyadondo Block 82 Plot 931 and in Civil Suit 333 of 2023 the claim is for fraud, Trespass, connivance and recovery of the Plaintifls suit property. The suit property is the same in both suits. Additionally, I observe that the parties in the suits are similar save for the fact that there is an addition of a Plaintiff in 333 of 2023, three other defendants and substituting the Attorney General with the Commissioner Land Registration. In a nutshell the prayers sought in both suits are the same.

In my view, this application is well premised and meets the conditions for consolidation. Nevertheless, it is discernable that Civil Suit No. 333 of 2023 in a way replicated Civil Suit No. 886 of 2022 but with amendment by addition of parties possibly to bring in the 3'd, 4'r' and 6th Respondents in the picture and remove the Attomey General. I believe that the addition of the Commissioner Land Registration as a party is done properly since the cause ofaction is disclosed

F.\*tor'ra"as

against the Commissioner Land Registration and not the Attorney General. It is my considered opinion that the remedy lay in amendment of Civil Suit No.886 of 2022 instead of bringing another suit.

I would order that the prosecution of Civil Suit No. 886 of 2022 be stayed until conclusion of Civil Suit 333 of 2023, however a stay of the suit would not be feasible as hearing and determination of Civil Suit 333 of 2023 shall fully address all the issues arising from Civil Suit No. 886 of 2022. I will therefore under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 282 and Section 33 and 17 (2) of the Judicature Act, Cap l6 dismiss Civil Suit No. 886 of 2022 with no order to costs.

In conclusion make the following orders;

- 1. Civil Suit 886 of 2022 Semitala Charles versus Ssemugabi Disan, Nakityo Cate, Nsubuga Shafic Ali and Attomey General is dismissed with no order to costs. - 2. The application for consolidation is dismissed. - 3. Each party shall bear their own costs.

#### Dated at Kampala this 24th day of June 2025.

lL

Christine Kaahwa

JUDGE.