Wakilii

Ababiri Muhamood & Four Ors V Mukomba Anastansia & Another (Civil Suit No. 22 of 2015)

High Court · [2019] UGHC 16 · 2019 Preliminary Objection Partly Allowed — Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objections raised by defendants in first instance civil suit for trespass and declarations
Decision
Suit dismissed with costs on preliminary objection

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 15 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 15 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations steady — 22 citing cases on record, 12 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Held that preliminary objections on limitation and wrong law failed. The right of action accrued to the plaintiffs in 2013 when the defendants' occupation became contested, making the 2015 suit timely. Section 29(4) of the Land Act was not the basis of the claim. The third objection succeeded: the plaint disclosed no cause of action. Only a party in actual or constructive possession can maintain trespass proceedings. The plaintiffs failed to plead or prove any right to the suit land. Suit dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed with costs on preliminary objection

Facts

The plaintiffs, as administrators and beneficiaries of the estate of the late Mukomba Hassan, sued the defendants for trespass and sought declarations that they were the rightful owners of the suit land. The 1st defendant, the widow of the late Mukomba Isiah, and the 2nd defendant had occupied the land since at least 1955. The deceased Mukomba Isiah had allegedly been permitted by one Swaliki Ndinomu to use the land temporarily for grazing with the understanding it would pass to the 1st plaintiff on reaching adulthood. The defendants remained in occupation without contest until 2013 when the plaintiffs, as administrators, attempted to negotiate with the defendants to vacate or take a portion of the land. The negotiations failed and the plaintiffs filed suit in 2015.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
  2. Whether the plaint was presented under the wrong law.
  3. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendants.

Orders

  • The first preliminary objection on limitation fails.
  • The second preliminary objection on wrong law fails.
  • The third preliminary objection succeeds.
  • The suit is dismissed with costs for not disclosing a cause of action against the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Preliminary Objections — Limitation — Accrual of Cause of Action
In determining whether a suit for recovery of land is time-barred, the Court is bound to consider the pleadings of the plaintiffs alone and not the defence. The right of action accrues when the plaintiff's rights are wrongly appropriated or when adverse possession commences, not from the date of the defendant's initial entry onto the land.
Licences — Applicability on Customary Land
A licence, as recognised in English common law, is a permission given by an occupier of land which, without creating any interest in land, allows the licensee to do some act which would otherwise be a trespass. There is no restriction that the licensor must be a registered owner; it is sufficient that they are in occupation. Section 29(4) of the Land Act makes specific reference to licences on registered land but does not exclude licences on customary land.
Cause of Action — Determination from Pleadings Alone
Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action must be determined upon perusal of the plaint alone together with anything attached to it, and upon the assumption that any express or implied allegations of fact in it are true. A cause of action is determined by the pleadings and attached documentation, not by evidence adduced during proceedings.
Trespass to Land — Standing to Sue — Requirement of Possession
Only a party in actual or constructive possession of land can maintain a cause of action in trespass. Trespass to land is committed not against the land but against the person who is in actual or constructive possession. Such possession entails that the person suing should be entitled to immediate and exclusive possession.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Hajati Ziribagwa and Another v Yakobo Ntate (High Court Civil Suit No. 102 of 2009)
  • Thomas Vrs Sorrell (1673) Vaugh. 330 at pg. 351
  • Auto Garage & Others Ltd v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 514
  • Jeraj Sharif v Chotai Fancy [1960] EA 374
  • Justice E.M.N. Lutaaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)

Cases citing this judgment (15)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Ababiri Muhamood & Four Ors V Mukomba Anastansia & Another (Civil Suit No. 22 of 2015) [2019] UGHC 16 (15 May 2019)
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.