Wakilii

Hakiri & 2 Others v Attorney General & 31 Others (Civil Appeal 14 of 2023)

Supreme Court · [2024] UGSC 18 · 2024 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second civil appeal from the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the High Court's dismissal of a representative land suit as time barred
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; the appellants' land suit stands barred under section 5 of the Limitation Act

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed a second appeal in a representative land suit. The appellants' action, filed in 2005, was for recovery of land governed by section 5 of the Limitation Act (twelve years). The trial court and Court of Appeal had concurrently found, on the evidence, that the appellants were evicted in 1992 and that their forced 2004 re-entry made them trespassers; the Supreme Court declined to disturb those concurrent findings of fact. The suit was therefore time barred. The appellants, having been settled on public land by Government as licensees, were neither customary tenants nor bona fide occupants under article 237(8) of the Constitution and section 29 of the Land Act, since they were not in occupation at the Constitution's promulgation in 1995.

Facts

The three appellants, acting for themselves and 523 other persons, sued the Attorney General and others in the High Court in 2005, claiming the suit land at Rwimi belonged to them and that Government could not deprive them of it without compensation. They alleged settlement on the land since the 1960s through Government programmes and an arrangement between the Kings of Kabale and Tooro. The evidence showed Government had begun surveying and gazetting the land for Rwimi Government Prison from the 1970s. The appellants resisted an eviction attempt in 1992 but were evicted that year; some were compensated and resettled in Bugangaizi. In 2004 they forcibly re-entered the land and were removed by prison authorities and police within days, with homes burnt. They based their claim on the 2004 eviction. The courts found they had been settled by Government as licensees, evicted in 1992, and became trespassers on re-entering in 2004.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial court's finding that the appellants' suit for recovery of land was time barred.
  2. Whether the cause of action arose on the 1992 eviction or the 2004 re-entry and removal.
  3. Whether the appellants were customary tenants or lawful or bona fide occupants of the suit land.
  4. Whether the second appellate court could interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the first appellate court that the appellants were evicted in 1992.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Grounds 2, 3 and 4 of the appeal disallowed.
  • Finding of fact that the appellants were evicted in 1992 affirmed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Recovery of Land — No Jurisdiction to Enlarge a Statutory Period
A court has no residual or inherent jurisdiction to enlarge a period of limitation laid down by statute; an action for recovery of land must be brought within twelve years of the accrual of the cause of action under section 5 of the Limitation Act, and a suit filed outside that period is barred and ousts the court's jurisdiction to try it on the merits.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Points of Law — Limitation Turning on a Disputed Fact
Where the question of limitation depends on facts in issue as to when the cause of action arose, those facts must be evaluated and decided before other issues; a point of law that substantially disposes of the suit should be tried first under Order 6 rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules, but only after the necessary evidence on the disputed facts has been taken.
Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Interference with Concurrent Findings of Fact
On a second appeal, the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the first appellate court unless satisfied that the findings were devoid of support in the evidence or so glaringly erroneous as to be perverse.
Land & Property — Bona Fide Occupant — Article 237(8) Constitution and Section 29 Land Act
Security of occupancy as a lawful or bona fide occupant under article 237(8) of the Constitution attaches only to a person in occupation of mailo, freehold or leasehold land at the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution; a person evicted before promulgation, or settled on public land by Government as a licensee, does not qualify as a bona fide occupant under article 237(8) or section 29(2) of the Land Act.
Land & Property — Customary Tenure — Acquisition in Accordance with Community Custom
A person claiming customary tenure under section 3(1) of the Land Act must prove acquisition of the land in accordance with the customs and practices of the community in which the land is situate; persons settled on the land by Government cannot claim to hold it as customary tenants.
Tort Law — Trespass — Continuing Tort and Accrual of the Cause of Action
Where a claimant settled by Government on public land is lawfully evicted and later forcibly re-enters, the re-entry makes the claimant a trespasser rather than reviving a cause of action; the limitation period for recovery of land runs from the original eviction and is not reset by a subsequent unlawful re-entry.

Legislation cited (19)

  • Limitation Act Cap 80 s.5
  • Limitation Act s.21(1)(d)
  • Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 72 s.3
  • Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 72 s.6
  • Land Act Cap 227 s.3(1)
  • Land Act Cap 227 s.29(2)
  • Land Act Cap 227 s.29(2)(b)
  • Land Act Cap 227 s.29(3)
  • Land Act Cap 227 s.29(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.26(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.237(8)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.237(9)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 15 rule 2
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 28
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 29
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 11
  • Advocates Act Cap 267 s.62(1)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.62
  • Prisons (Declaration)(No.2) Instrument SI 304-2

Cases cited (21)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Nalumansi v Kasande & 2 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2015)
  • Kampala District Land Board & Anor v Venansio Babweyaka & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2007)
  • Jin Sabrose Ayuma & 11 Ors Vs. Registered Trustees of the Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme and 3 Ors; Petition 65 of 2010
  • Muhindo James & 3 Ors v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 127 of 2016)
  • Port Elizabeth Municipality Vs. Various Occupiers (2005) (1) SA 217 (CC)
  • Western Steamship Co. Ltd vs Amaral Sutherland Co. Ltd (1914) 2 KB 55
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • N.A.S Airport Services Ltd v the Attorney General of Kenya [1959] E.A.53
  • Nurdin Ali Dewji & others v G.M.M Meghji & Co. and Others (1953) 20 EACA 132
  • Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1980)
  • Osman v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd [1968] E.A. 102 at p. 104
  • Pritan Kaur v. Russel & Sons Ltd. [1973] I All E.R. 617 at p. 622
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Sam K Njuba and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 26 of 2006)
  • Birkett v James [1977] 2 All E.R. 801
  • Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Ltd ([1961] 2 All ER 482 at 485, [1962] 1 QB 189 at 195)
  • Tolson v Kaye ((1822) 3 Brod & Bing 217 at 223)
  • Uganda Breweries Ltd v Uganda Railways Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001)
  • R. Mohamed Ali Hasham vs. R (1941) 8 E.A.C.A. 93
  • R. vs. Hassan bin Said (1942) 9 E.A.C.A. 62
  • Selle and Another Vs Associated Motor Board Co. Ltd.
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.