Court blocks Korean evangelical group's bid to halt Bwerenga land dealings
The judge agreed with the mission that the parties in the two applications were not exactly the same but held that the respondents in the present application could be considered privies of the parties in the earlier proceedings.
Justice Nabakooza said the earlier court had already determined that there was no element of sale, but rather attachment and delivery of immovable property.
WAKISO - The High Court in Entebbe has dismissed an application by the Korea Evangelical Mission to All Nations seeking to stop the execution and implementation of a court decree that affected its land in Bwerenga, Wakiso district.
Justice Flavia Nabakooza dismissed the application after finding that the mission’s bid to halt the execution of the decree was barred by the principle of res judicata, meaning that the same matter had already been dealt with by a competent court.
The judge also ordered each party to bear its own costs.
The ruling arose from Miscellaneous Application No. 522 of 2025, filed against the Commissioner for Land Registration, Hannington Mutebi, and Samuel Batanudde.
The mission had asked the court to stay the execution, implementation and enforcement of a ruling and decree issued in Civil Suit No. 1101 of 2020, pending the hearing and determination of its application for review in Miscellaneous Application No. 521 of 2025.
It also sought an order maintaining the status quo on land formerly comprised in Busiro Block 413 Plots 1241, 2227 and 2300 at Bwerenga, which it claimed was undergoing subdivision and other dealings.
The mission further asked the court to stop any further dealings in the land until its review application was determined.
The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Rev. Dr John Kwon Ohag, the mission’s director and chairman.
He told court that Mutebi and Batanudde had earlier sued to recover land comprised in Busiro Block 413 Plots 16 and 19 at Bwerenga.
The suit was summarily determined on a point of law after the court found that the mission, whose directors were South Korean nationals, had acquired the land without the requisite consent of the Minister.
The court held that the acquisition was illegal, null and void and that the mission had no protectable interest in the land.
The mission subsequently filed an application seeking to review and set aside the decision, but the application was dismissed.
The mission’s sister company, All Nations Theological College and Seminary Ltd, also filed a separate application seeking a review of the same decision, but it too was dismissed.
According to the mission, its former lawyers had failed to file submissions or take sufficient interest in defending its interests, prompting it to change lawyers.
The mission’s new lawyers later discovered what they described as new and important evidence, including correspondence with the Commissioner for Land Registration, which they argued warranted a review of the earlier decision.
The mission also alleged that the original land case was part of a syndicated scheme by fraudsters who intended to use court proceedings to take away its land.
It claimed that changes in its leadership over the years had created a gap in knowledge about the circumstances surrounding the original acquisition of the land.
The mission further alleged that Mutebi and Batanudde had acted in concert with other defendants in the original suit and other people to take over its property.
It argued that following the earlier court orders, the land was being subdivided and dealt with, putting it at risk of losing the property and being unlawfully evicted.
The mission said it was in actual possession of the land, where it had established a church, school and seminary.
It identified several subdivisions in the land registry system, including Busiro Block 413 Plots 2990, 2992, 2993, 2994, 2995, 2996, 2997, 2980, 2981, 2982, 2983, 2984, 2985, 2986, 2987, 2988, 2989, 2976, 2977, 2978, 2979, 3027, 3011, 3010 and 3009, which it wanted stopped.
However, Mutebi opposed the application, arguing that the decree had already been executed, returns had been filed and the titles transferred to third parties, leaving nothing for the court to stay.
He also argued that the application was barred by res judicata because the mission and its sister company had previously filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1169 of 2025 in the Family Division, seeking a stay of execution involving the same land.
That application had been dismissed by Justice John Eudes Keitirima.
Mutebi argued that the mission had not appealed against that decision and could not return to the same court with another application seeking a stay of execution.
He further contended that the mission had sued the wrong parties because the land had already been transferred to third parties, including Geoffrey Ssentongo and Abdul Sebbi.
Mutebi maintained that the mission never obtained the mandatory ministerial consent required to acquire the land and that its allegations could be raised through an appeal.
He also denied that the mission was in possession of the land, arguing that the property had been attached pursuant to a court order and handed over to the judgment creditors.
He told court that the original Plots 16 and 19 had long been subdivided and no longer existed, meaning that court could not stay execution in respect of non-existent titles.
Mutebi further explained that following the decree in the original suit, Plots 2227, 1241 and 2300 reverted to the estate of the late Teretio Nsubuga.
The land was subsequently attached in favour of judgment creditors Ssentongo and Sebbi, and transferred into their names.
He denied using court proceedings to commit fraud and maintained that the original suit had been properly determined after the court found that the mission had acquired the land without the required ministerial consent.
Batanudde also opposed the application, saying he had sued the mission to recover the land and cancel the titles relating to Busiro Block 413 Plots 16 and 19.
He said the case was determined summarily after his former lawyer raised a preliminary objection that the mission had acquired the land without the Minister’s consent.
Batanudde argued that the mission had failed to prove that its directors were Ugandan nationals or produce the required ministerial consent.
He asked the mission to avail the consent for verification by the commissioner for land registration.
He also denied that subdivisions were taking place, saying the process had been halted by an injunction issued by court.
Batanudde further stated that the mission and its sister company remained in actual possession of the land.
Respondents fight back
In reply, the mission insisted that there had been no lawful execution capable of being stayed.
It argued that the land was not transferred to Ssentongo and Sebbi through a lawful attachment, but was instead transferred directly from the administrators of the estate of the late Teretio Nsubuga.
It also challenged the special certificates of title used in the transactions, alleging that they had been fraudulently and illegally obtained.
The mission claimed that the special certificates were processed and issued on February 13, 2025, before the Gazette notice for their issuance was published on February 21, 2025.
It further argued that the warrant of attachment was issued on February 20, 2025, before the Gazette notice and before the administrators of the late Nsubuga’s estate were registered on the titles.
The mission therefore contended that Ssentongo and Sebbi did not acquire a good title capable of being passed on to third parties.
It also argued that its earlier applications for review had been dismissed on preliminary grounds and not on their merits, and that the grounds in the latest review application were different.
Court’s final decision
However, Justice Nabakooza focused on the preliminary objection of res judicata.
The judge noted that the mission and its sister company had previously filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1169 of 2025, seeking, among other orders, the release of Plots 2300, 1241 and 2227 from attachment and a stay of further execution and dealings in the land.
Justice Keitirima had dismissed that application after finding that the execution process had already been completed.
The judge observed that the earlier application concerned the same land, formerly comprised in Plots 16 and 19, and sought essentially the same relief as the current application.
Justice Nabakooza said the earlier ruling had found that the land had already reverted to the estate of the late Nsubuga pursuant to the decision in Civil Suit No. 1101 of 2020.
She noted that the decision remained valid unless it was overturned or reviewed.
The judge agreed with the mission that the parties in the two applications were not exactly the same but held that the respondents in the present application could be considered privies of the parties in the earlier proceedings.
Justice Nabakooza said the earlier court had already determined that there was no element of sale, but rather attachment and delivery of immovable property.
She quoted the earlier ruling, which held that once attachment and delivery of the property had been completed, execution was concluded and there was nothing left to stay.
The judge said the finding had neither been appealed against nor set aside by a competent court and therefore remained valid, subsisting and binding in relation to the execution and stay of execution concerning the disputed land.
“Consequently, I find that the third ingredient of res judicata has been satisfied,” Justice Nabakooza ruled.
She added that the mission was effectively seeking to litigate the same matter twice in successive proceedings, which should not be allowed.
“Res judicata simply means nothing more than that a person cannot be heard to say the same thing twice over in successive litigation,” the judge stated, citing a Court of Appeal decision.
Justice Nabakooza concluded that the plea of res judicata had been successfully proved and that it was therefore unnecessary to consider the other preliminary objections raised by Mutebi.
“By virtue of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 71), this court is statutorily barred from entertaining any further action on this matter,” she ruled.
The judge consequently dismissed Miscellaneous Application No. 522 of 2025.
She ordered that each party bear its own costs.