Nyamutale v Nabitaka & Ors (Civil Suit No. 900 of 2000) [2001] UGHC 16 (11 June 2001)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f201\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f202\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f204\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f205\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f206\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f207\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f208\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f209\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 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 \styrsid490142 Normal (Web);}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid490142\rsid4342474\rsid8914311\rsid12211600}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA }{\author DELL}{\operator DELL}{\creatim\yr2009\mo11\dy10\hr16\min5} {\revtim\yr2009\mo11\dy10\hr16\min26}{\version3}{\edmins21}{\nofpages5}{\nofwords1322}{\nofchars7540}{\nofcharsws8845}{\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\rsidroot490142\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\pararsid8914311 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA}{ \b\fs26\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 \par }{\b\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 IN THE H}{\b\fs26\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 IGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA \par }{\b\fs26\insrsid4342474 CIVIL SUIT NO.}{\b\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 900 OF 200}{\b\fs26\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 0 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8914311 {\b\fs26\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 PATRICK NYAMUTALE\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85 \'85 PLAINTIFF \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8914311 {\b\fs26\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 VERSUS \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8914311 {\b\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 NABITAKA CATHRINE \line SERUNKUMA ROSETTE \line ALAM PROTECTION SERVICE}{ \b\fs26\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 S\} \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85DEFENDANTS \line KIGGUNDU SAMUEL \par }{\b\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice E. S. Lugayizi }{\b\fs26\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8914311 {\b\fs26\ul\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 RULING}{\b\fs26\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8914311 {\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 This is a ruling. It arose as a result of a preliminary objection that was raised by Messrs Matovu and Mwesigwa who represented the }{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 1}{\super\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 st}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 , 2}{ \super\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 nd}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 and 4}{\super\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 th}{\fs18\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 defendants and the 3rd defendant respectively. However, before Court goes into the details of the objection it will narrate its background, which is as follows. The plaintiff filed the head suit against the four defen dants alleging that they conspired and made certain malicious falsehoods, which they disclosed to his employer with the result that he was dismissed from employment. In their WSDs the defendants denied the above claim and the }{ \b\fs12\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 1St }{\fs18\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 2nd }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 and }{\fs18\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 4th }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 defendants, am ong other things, gave notice of their intention to raise a preliminary objection with a view to showing that the }{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 plaintiff\rquote s}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 suit was misconceived and bad in law. \line May 2001 when the suit came before Court for a Scheduling Conference Messrs Matovu and Mwesi gwa took opportunity to addressed Court on the preliminary objection referred to above. In essence, Mr. Matovu relied on two grounds for the objection. Firstly, he submitted t}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 hat the plaint does not disclose that t he plaintiff had a right that was violate}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 d a}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 nd th}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 e 1}{\super\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 st}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 , 2}{ \super\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 nd}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 and 4}{\super\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 th}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 defendants were liable. He cited the case of }{\b\ul\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 Auto Garage and Others .v. }{\b\fs26\ul\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 Motokov (1971) EA }{\b\ul\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 514 }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 in support of that submission. That aside, he also pointed out that the torts named injurious falsehood and conspiracy to injure someone in his tra de are not causes of action known to our law. He therefore explained that the plaintiff should have done better than he did if, he founded his causes of action in defamation. Secondly, and in the alternative Mr. Matovu submitted that the plaintiffs suit w a}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 s res }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 judicata. He pointed out that the plaintiff sued Population Service International in High Court Civil Suit No.1124 of 1999, among other things, for wrongful dismissal. That suit was finally disposed of under a consent judgment. However, the head sui t that was also filed by the plaintiff is against the employees or agents of the defendant in High Court Civil Suit No. 1124 of 1999. It substantially raises the same issues that were finally dealt with or should have, through the exercise of due diligenc e, been finally dealt with in High Court Civil Suit No. 1124 of 1999. For that reason, Mr. Matovu argued that the head suit is barred under section 7 of the CPA.. He cited the case of }{\b\ul\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 Kamunye and others v Pioneer General }{\b\ul\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 I}{\b\ul\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 nsurance }{\b\ul\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 Ltd }{\b\ul\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 (1971) E.}{\b\ul\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 A. 267}{\ul\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 }{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 in su}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 pp}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 ort of his submission. Finally, he called upon Court to dismiss the}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 suit}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 against the 1}{\super\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 s}{\super\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 t}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 2}{\super\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 nd}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 a}{ \insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 nd 4}{\super\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 th}{\fs18\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 defendants }{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 o}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 n accoun}{ \insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 t of any of those two grounds. \par }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 Mr. Mwesigwa, counsel for the 3}{\super\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 rd}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 defendant associated himself fully with Mr. Matovu\rquote s submissions and called upon Court to }{ \insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 dismiss the suit against the 3}{\super\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 rd}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 defendant. \par }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 Mr. Kiryowa, counsel for the plaintiff, vehemently opposed the objection. He submitted that the plaintiff had valid causes of action against the defendants. He had a right to carry on his trade. The defendants violated that right when they conspired and published injurious falsehoods against him. Those falsehoods resulted in his dismissal from employment. Consequently, the defendants were liable for the results of their act ions. Mr. Kiryowa relied on }{\b\fs26\ul\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 Auto Garage and others v Motokov (supra); and a number of English authorities that included Ratcliffe v Evans C. A. 524; and Pratt and others v British Medical Association and others 1 K. B. 244 }{\b\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 for }{ \insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 that submission. Secondly, Mr. Kiryowa submitted that the matters in the present suit are not res judicata. In his view, High Court Civil Suit No. 1124 of 1999 }{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 centered}{ \insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 on a contract of employment that was between the plaintiff and P. S. I.; and the defendants in the head suit were not privy to that contract. Consequently, the subject matter of the head suit that is totally different could not have been disposed of in the earlier suit. All in all, Mr. Kiryowa called upon Court to over-rule the defe}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 ndants\rquote preliminary objection. \par }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 Court will dispose of the above two grounds of objection in the order in whic}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 h they were argued by counsel. \par }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 With regard to whether the plaint discloses a caus}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 e of action, Court has this to s}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 ay. }{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 A}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 s coun}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 s}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 e}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 l rightly}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 }{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 submitted accordin}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 g to }{ \insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 the case of}{\b\fs26\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 }{\b\ul\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 Auto Garage .v. Motokov (supra)}{\b\fs26\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 }{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 there are three prerequisites for the existence of a cause of }{\i\fs22\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 \line }{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 action; and they are as follows, \par }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 1) that }{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 the plaintiff enjoyed a right; \par }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 2}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 ) that right was violated; and \par }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 3) that the defendant is liable. \par The important question to ask now, is whether the plaint in the head suit embodies the above three prerequisites? There is material in that plaint, which shows that}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 before the head suit was filed}{ \insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 the pla}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 intiff was employed by P. S. I.}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 There is further material in the said plaint to show that P. S. I. terminated the plaintiff\rquote s employment when the defendants brought to its attention certain facts, which the plaintiff alleges were false; and that is why he thinks the defendants are liable. As a result of the foregoing, Court thinks that the plaint in the head suit adequately meets the prerequisites for the exi stence of causes of action in respect of the torts of malicious}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 falsehood and conspiracy}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 to injure some one in his trade. After reaching that conclusion, it follo}{ \insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 ws that we cannot turn back and }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 say that our law does not know the said causes of action. In the circumstances, the first g}{\insrsid8914311\charrsid4342474 round of objection has failed. }{ \insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 With regard to the second ground of objection, in the case of }{\b\fs26\ul\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 Kamunve }{\b\i\fs26\ul\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 v }{\b\fs26\ul\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 Pioneer Assurance Ltd }{\ul\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 (supra) }{\b\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 Sheridan (J)}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 (as he then was) put the test whether or not a suit is barred by res judicata in the following words, at page }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 265}{\i\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 of his judgment, }{\insrsid12211600\charrsid4342474 \par }{\b\i\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 \'93The test }{\fs10\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 ... }{\b\i\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 seems to me...- is the }{\i\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 plaintiff }{\b\i\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 in the second suit trying to bring before court, in another way and in the form of a new cause of action, a transaction which he has already }{\i\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 put }{\b\i\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 before a court of competen t jurisdiction in earlier proceedings and which has been adjudicated upon. If so, the plea of res judicata applies not only to points upon which the first court was actually required to adjudicate but to }{\i\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 every }{ \b\i\fs26\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which the parties exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time...\'94 }{\b\i\fs26\insrsid12211600\charrsid4342474 \par }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 Can we say from the above that the plaintiff in the head suit brought before Court in another way and in the form of a new cause of action, a tr ansaction which he had already put before a court of competent jurisdiction earlier on and which was adjudicated upon? Firstly, although the defendants in the two suits in question seem to be different, the truth of the matter is that they are one and the

same. Indeed, the plaintiff sued the defendants in the head suit on account that as employees or agents of P. S. I. they wrote a confidential report about him that resulted in his dismissal. It seems therefore, that the defendants wrote that report in the course of their employment. Consequently when the plaintiff}{\insrsid12211600\charrsid4342474 sued them for what they did in their official capacity, he was indirectly }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 targeting their employer. At the end of the day if they lost the suit, it is most unlikely that they will effectively dip their hands in their pockets to pay. Obviously, their employer (P. S. I.) will have to foot the bill. Any reasonable employer would do just that. Secondly, although Court agrees that one of the causes of action in High Court Civil Suit No. 1124 of 1999 was breach of contract of employment and the defendants were not parties thereto, that suit consisted of other causes of actions. Some o f those other causes of action were malicious prosecution, and loss of opportunities. In Court\rquote s opinion, a number of important issues like malice, falsehoods, and financial loss, that were conclusively dealt with under the consent judgment in High Court C ivil Suit No.1124 of 1999 are, indeed, the same matters that are yet to be disposed of in the head suit. In fact, Court can dare say, that while High Court Civil Suit No.1124 of 1999 is no more and was completely put to rest sometime ago, presently, its g host continues to lurk around and }{\insrsid12211600\charrsid4342474 to haunt the defendants and P. }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 S. I. in the form of the head suit. In addition to the foregoing one can also say, that if the plaintiff had exercised reasonable diligence in suing t}{\insrsid12211600\charrsid4342474 he defendant in High Court Civil}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 suit No.}{\insrsid12211600\charrsid4342474 1124 of 1999, }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 he would have}{\insrsid12211600\charrsid4342474 }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 included}{\insrsid12211600\charrsid4342474 }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 the present causes of actio}{\insrsid12211600\charrsid4342474 n in the head suit, for that is }{\insrsid4342474\charrsid4342474 w}{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 here they rightly belonged. For those reas}{\insrsid4342474\charrsid4342474 ons, res judicata must apply to the }{\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 head suit that is hereby barred and dismissed. It is further ordered that bear the cost}{\insrsid4342474\charrsid4342474 s of this suit. \par }\pard \s15\qj \li5760\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0\pararsid4342474 {\b\insrsid4342474\charrsid4342474 \par E. S LUGAYIZI \par JUDGE \par }{\b\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 11 - 6 - 200}{\b\insrsid4342474\charrsid4342474 1}{\b\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 \par }\pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8914311 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid490142\charrsid4342474 \par }}