Kamuhangire Miisi v Kashumba Gerald (Civil Appeal No. DR. MFP 8/90) [1991] UGHC 11 (31 July 1991)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f138\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f139\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f141\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f142\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f143\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f144\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f145\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f146\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 \styrsid16151093 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid16151093 Normal (Web);}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid818933\rsid1924776\rsid2583908\rsid4007528\rsid4030013\rsid4259870\rsid4599347\rsid4604570\rsid4921254\rsid7809695\rsid9119456\rsid9254403\rsid9388988\rsid11084912\rsid11482869\rsid13064083 \rsid16151093}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{\author user}{\operator user}{\creatim\yr2009\mo12\dy28\hr15\min40}{\revtim\yr2009\mo12\dy28\hr18\min48}{\version3}{\edmins188}{\nofpages7}{\nofwords2072} {\nofchars11814}{\nofcharsws13859}{\vern24689}}\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot16151093\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}} {\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (} {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16151093 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\ul\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{ \b\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 \par IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT FORT PORTAL \par CIVIL APPEAL NO. DR. MFP 8/90 \par (Original Civil Appeal No. 9/89 of Kabale Court) \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16151093 {\b\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 KAMUHANGIRE MIISI:::::::::::::::::::::}{\b\insrsid2583908 :::::::::::::::::}{ \b\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 ::::::::::::::::APPELLANT \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16151093 {\b\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 VERSUS \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16151093 {\b\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 KASHUMBA GERALD::::::::::::::}{\b\insrsid2583908 :::::::::::::::::}{ \b\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 ::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESP0NDENT \par BEFORE: }{\b\ul\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. MUKANZA }{\b\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16151093 {\b\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 JUDGMENT \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16151093 {\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 This is an appeal by David Kamuhangire hereinafter referred to as the appellant against the ruling of the learned Chief Magistrate sitting at Kabale dated 24th January, 1990 whereby the learned Chief Magistrate upheld a preliminary point of law raised by the learned counsel representing Gerald Kashumba hereinafter referred to as the respondent in that the subject matter of the appeal was the same subject matter that was decided in Civil Suit No.7/86 of Kagunga court before Magistrate Grade I Mr. Akiiki Kiiza. \par The background of this case simply is a land dispute. It dates as far back as 1985 before the Resistance council system came into \line operation. The appellant is stated to have filed his complaint before the Adhoc Committee of the Resistance council and the latter found in his favour. As if that was enough he filed a case against the respondent under the RC system RCI. On 7}{\super\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 th}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 June, 1989 and judgment was delivered in his favour. He was allowed to use the disputed land. The respondent not being satisfied with the decision complained before the RC2 court. He lost the case. The court found for the appellant who was allowed to use the land in dispute. \par The respondent not being satisfied with the decisions of the courts of R. C. I and R. C. II complained to the RC I II court. The latter court after hearing evidence from the parties and their witnesses found that the disputed land was the property of the respondent. In all those courts the appellant all along maintained that he bought the land in question from one Bat aringaya who bought the same land from the father of the respondent also called }{\ul\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 Gashumba. }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 \par However in Civil Suit No. 7/86 the respondent sued one Charles Bataringaya for the same piece of land before a Magistrate Grade I court sitting at Kagunga and judgment was delivered in his favour. \par Be that as it may the appellant not being satisfied with the decision of the RC III court appealed to the Chief Magistrate court. He listed about nine grounds of appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant arr ived in court a bit late when the learned counsel for the respondent had already submitted on his preliminary point of objection to the appeal which as I}{\insrsid4604570\charrsid2583908 stated earlier on was upheld. }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 He was advised by the court if he }{\insrsid4604570\charrsid2583908 so wished to file in a written }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 submission in reply. That advice was apparently}{\insrsid4604570\charrsid2583908 not adopted by the appellant. \par }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 The appellant not being satisfied w}{\insrsid4604570\charrsid2583908 ith the decision of the Chief Magi}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 strate applied for leave from the Chief Magistrate\rquote s court to appeal to the High Court under S. 232 }{\insrsid4604570\charrsid2583908 (1}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 ) (c) of the Magistrate\rquote s courts Act 1970. Leave was readily granted by the Chief Magistrate (not the one who presided }{ \insrsid4604570\charrsid2583908 over the appeal). \par }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 The appeal }{\insrsid4604570\charrsid2583908 is grounded on three reasons:\emdash \par }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 1. That the learned Chief Magistrate erred in law by entertaining the application of counsel for the respondent when no notice of appl}{\insrsid4604570\charrsid2583908 ication has been given. \par 2. }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 That the learned Chief Magistrate erred in dismissing the appellants appeal relying on wrong documents and the doctrine of }{\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 resjudicate}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 could not apply since the appellant had acquired his own }{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 independent}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 rights in the land under dispute. }{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 \par }{\i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 3. }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 That under the circumstances the ruling of the learned Chief Magistrate occassio}{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 ned a miscarriage of justice. \par }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 At the commencement of the hearing of this appeal the first ground of appeal was abandoned by the appellants counsel and }{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 the}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 court proceeded to hear the }{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 rest of the grounds of appeal. \par }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that }{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 the underlying principle of resjudicata}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 is that there must be an end }{ \insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 to}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 litigation. While it is true the }{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 appellant bought the land from B}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 ataringaya who was the defendant in Civil Suit No. }{\i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 7 }{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 of 1986. \par }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 The appellant bought land in 1982 and took up possession and developed his rights }{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 independent}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 of the seller. So that when Civi}{ \insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 l Suit No. 7/1986 was filed in R}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 ukungiri the }{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 appellant}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 had already his land }{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 independent}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 and sep}{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 arate from those of Bataringaya. }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 So when the respondent filed C. S. No. 7/1986 in Rukungiri court he well knew that the appellant was on that land and that was exemplified by the proceedings of the RC I, II }{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 a}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 nd RC }{ \insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 III courts. And when cross exam}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 in}{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 ed}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 those courts by the appellant accepted that he the respondent had appeared with the appellant. His explanation in R. C. Courts was that he}{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 filed a Civil Suit No. 7/1986 as }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 a sort of an appeal against the ruling}{\insrsid9254403\charrsid2583908 of}{\b\i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 the NRM committee of 1985 so }{\insrsid7809695\charrsid2583908 after the respondent had appeared with the appellant before the NR}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 M tribunal and lost he could not have clandestinely filed a suit }{\insrsid7809695\charrsid2583908 against the person who was not in possession of the disputed land. \par }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 The learned coinee1 continued that he was }{\insrsid7809695\charrsid2583908 very suspicious how Civil Suit }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 No. 7/86 was decided because Bataringay}{\insrsid7809695\charrsid2583908 a having appeared almost throughout }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 the trial }{\insrsid7809695\charrsid2583908 decided to abandon the case and an exparte judgment was entered }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 for the respondent. His fear was that the c }{\insrsid7809695\charrsid2583908 ourt was deceived by parading th}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 at there was one Bataringaya when he was not there. His suspicion are }{\insrsid13064083\charrsid2583908 ra}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 ised when the respondent had instead}{\insrsid13064083\charrsid2583908 of joining the appellant with }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 whom he had appeared in the PC courts and then joined some one who no longer had interest in the land. The is}{ \insrsid13064083\charrsid2583908 sues therefore in Civil Suit No.}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 7/86 were not substantially and directly in position to dispose of the issue in Civil }{\insrsid13064083\charrsid2583908 Appeal}{ \insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 No. 9 }{\insrsid13064083\charrsid2583908 of 1989. \par }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 On the third ground of appeal the learned counsel submitted that the ruling of the }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 Chief }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 Magistrate caused a }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 miscarriage of}{\insrsid13064083\charrsid2583908 justice because}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 he was calling upon the appellant to trace Bataringaya who was alleged by the respondent and the PC\rquote s that they had no trace of him. \line It could only have been fair arid just }{\insrsid13064083\charrsid2583908 to allow the party in occupation}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 and who had been in occupation bef}{\insrsid13064083\charrsid2583908 ore the filing of Civil Suits No.6}{ \insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 7/86 to exhaust his legal venues against the respondent. He prayed that the appeal be allowed and the matter be remitted back to Kabale to try the appeal emanating from the }{\insrsid13064083\charrsid2583908 RC III court.

\par }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 The learned counsel representing the respondent submitted that the appeal was rightly held to c}{\insrsid13064083\charrsid2583908 ontain issues caught by the res}{\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 judicate }{ \insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 under S. 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 C. S.}{\i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 }{\insrsid13064083\charrsid2583908 No.}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 7 of 1986 is a former }{ \insrsid4007528\charrsid2583908 suit when compared to the R}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 C III Chairman decision. The Chief Magistrate court sent two letters }{\insrsid4007528\charrsid2583908 to R}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 . C. III court advising them not to entertain the suit one of the letter was dated 8th August 1988 and the other is dated 5th September 1988 as well. A court was to be competent if }{\insrsid4007528\charrsid2583908 established by law. The RC\rquote s court s }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 are creatures of Statute No. 1 of 1988. That the court mentioned by his learned friend as having }{\insrsid4030013\charrsid2583908 entertained the matter in 1985 was not a competent court. It will be }{ \insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 unsafe to put on record of this court that there was such committee when the law at that time was not }{\insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 recognizing such committee at all. }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 Bataringaya was not a fictitious person introduced to defeat the cause of justice. H e was mentioned by the appellant in the memorandum of appeal before the Chief Magistrate as a person who sold him land. A person claiming under another person as explained in section }{\i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 7 }{ \insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 of the CPA Cap }{\i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 65 }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 includes a person who claims to have purchased from t}{\insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 he person who has}{ \insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 had litigation with the other party. In the circumstances Bataringaya was pa}{\insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 rty and a purchaser from Batari}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 n}{\insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 g}{ \insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 aya was claiming to have had that land through }{\insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 Bataringaya. The matter was resjudicata}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 when looked at from all angles. Accordin g to the 2 letters the RC courts had no authority to re-open a case which had already been decided upon by a Magistrate\rquote s court. In p}{\insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 roceeding to hear the case the R}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 C were contravening the Statute which had created it. The learned trial Magistrate looked at grounds 3 & 6 of the memorandum o}{\insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 f appeal in his letter to the RC}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 \lquote s. In ground }{ \i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 3 }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 the appellant admitted that the respondent had used the land for 2 years whi}{\insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 le his father was still alive. \par }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 In ground 6 the appellant ex}{\insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 plained that the father of the respondent}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 testified for his son. The Chief Magistrate looked at ground }{ \i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 7 }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 in which the appellant stated that Bataring}{\insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 aya sold the land to him, and later sold the same}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 to David Gashumba. The Chief Magistrate found that }{\insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 e}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 ven if the appeal had been prosecuted it would have been useless because the groun}{\insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 ds only showed confusion. The RC.}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 III court informed the appellant of the existence of Charles Bataringaya whom he claimed sold him land and requested him to bring Bataringaya but failed. So whether one considere}{ \insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 d in whole or res}{\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 judicate}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 alone the}{\insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 re was no merit in the appeal. }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 He prayed}{ \insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 that the appeal be dismissed. }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 After the }{\insrsid9119456\charrsid2583908 submission}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 by the learned counsel representing the parties}{ \insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 \par I }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 now turn to consider the appeal. First that }{\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 the}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 learned Chi ef Magistrate erred in dismissing the appeal relying on wrong documents and the doctrine of }{\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 resjudicate}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 , could not apply since the appellant had }{\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 a}{ \insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 cquired his own }{\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 independent}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 rights. Section }{\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 7 of the Civil Proc}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 edure }{ \insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 A}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 ct }{\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 states:- \par }\pard \s15\qj \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid4921254 {\i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 \'93No court shall try any}{\i\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 suit}{ \i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 or is}{\i\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 sue in which }{\i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 the matter direc}{\i\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 tly and substantially in issue }{\i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try such }{\i\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 subsequent}{ \i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 suit or the suit in which such issue}{\i\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 has been subsequently}{\i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 raised, and has been heard and f}{\i\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 inally decided by such court.\'94 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16151093 {\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 In the present appeal the parties are the appellant and the respondent the subject matter is land which was adjudicated upon }{\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 by the RC III court of the}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 area where the land was }{ \insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 situated; but in Civil Suit No.}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 7/86 whi}{\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 ch was decided by the Grade I M}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 agistrate Rukungiri at Kagunga the parties were the respondent as the plaintiff and one Kyomuhangire was the defendant while the s ubject matter was the same but the parties were not the same. I agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that when the appellant filed his suit before the RC adhoc committee in 1985 and succeeded the RC system had not come into operation. The RC Committee}{\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 s were the creature of Statute }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 No. 1 of 1988. However the r}{\insrsid4921254\charrsid2583908 espondent was aware that he was }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 litigating with the appellant who is stated to have bought the land from Kyomuhangire way back in 1982. It was therefore improper when he filed Civil Suit N}{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 o.}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 7/86 against Bataringaya whom he knew no longer had interest in the subject matter land. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had acquired his rights in the subject matter land }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 independently}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 of one Kyomuhangire. Therefor}{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 e when }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 the respondent filed the said Civil Suit }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 7/86 against Kyomuhangire }{ \insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 he ought to }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 have joine}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 d }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 the appellant}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 as a party in order to dispose of}{ \insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 the dispute once and for all. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid818933 {\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 A}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 s already explained above the dispute went through all the three}{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 systems of the RC courts from RC I to RC III. At the court of R}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 C III the ap}{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 pellant lost the case and he app}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 ealed to the Chief Magistrate court. The learned counsel for the }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 respondent}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 submitte}{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 d that the R}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 C courts were directed not to entertain the case because the same had been adjudicated upon by court with competent jurisdiction. The learned counsel then purportedly showed to this court two letters or in way }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 tendered}{ \insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 in courts two letters dated }{\i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 5/9/89 }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 and 18th August 1988 stopping the }{\i\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 R}{\i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 C \rquote S }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 not entertain the matter because the same had already been litigated upon before. The two letters were nev}{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 er referred to at the trial in R}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 . C. courts and they were not written by the Chief Magistrate but a certain grade I }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 Ma}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 gistrate Beyanga so it is not true that the learned Chief Magistrate }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 wrote to the R}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 C\rquote s }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 stopping}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 them from entertaining the matter. What was certain from records was that t}{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 he Chief Magistrate wrote a letter setting}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 aside the exparte judgment of the}{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 RC III court and ordered for a}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 retrial. Moreover the two letters referred to me had no evidential value because I was not receiving fresh evidence when}{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 I entertained the appeal. The R}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 C courts therefore had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Civil Suit 7/86 was therefore not a resjudicate in that though the subject matter in the case was the same as was in the instant appeal. The parties were not the same. In Civil Suit No. 7/86 the parties were the respondent as the plaintiff and one Kyo muhangire as the defendant. Besides that the appellant had }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 a}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 cquired his own interest and rights in th}{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 e}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 subject matter and as such he was not claiming the said land through }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 Ky}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 omuhangire who had since 1986 disappeared. The learned Chie}{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 f Magistrate therefore}{ \insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 erred when he dismissed the }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 appeal on the pretext that the ap}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 peal was resjudicate. This ground of appeal }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 therefore succeeds. \par }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 The second ground of appeal was that the decision of the Chief Magistrate caused a miscarriage of justice. It was true that the learned counsel representing the respondent arrived late when the preliminary point of law had }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 just}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 been argued. Looking at the }{\insrsid818933\charrsid2583908 nature}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 of the claim land case of which I take judicial notice that it is a sensitive matter in this country it would have been fair to allow the appellant to exhaust all his legal venues on the matter since he was the party in occupation of the land }{\insrsid2583908\charrsid2583908 s}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 ince}{\insrsid2583908\charrsid2583908 }{ \insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 1982. And it was also not proper for the learned }{\i\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 Chief }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 Magistrate to have advised the appellant to trace the said Bataringaya for refund of the money he paid for the land because the said Bataringaya has since 1986 disappeared. There was no trace of him. This ground of }{\insrsid2583908\charrsid2583908 appeal}{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 also succeeds.}{ \insrsid2583908\charrsid2583908 \par }{\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 In the end I allow this appeal with costs and I order that the case file be remitted back to the Chief Magistrate Kabale with directions that he proceeds to hear the appeal from the RC III court on its merits and so I order. \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16151093 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 \par }\pard \ql \li6480\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0\pararsid16151093 {\b\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 I. MUKANZA \line }{\b\ul\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 J UDGE }{\b\insrsid16151093\charrsid2583908 \line 31/7/91 \line }{\b\insrsid11482869\charrsid2583908 \par }}