Wakilii

Airtel Uganda Ltd and Others v Ushanga Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 2336 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCLD 283 · 2025 Application Granted — Suit Dismissed as Time-Barred AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to dismiss underlying civil suit for being time-barred under the Limitation Act
Decision
Underlying civil suit dismissed as statute-barred

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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 High Court Land Division held that a claim for recovery of land filed more than 12 years after the cause of action arose is statute-barred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court distinguished trespass to land from recovery of land, finding that where a plaintiff is out of possession and asserting ownership rights, the claim is one of recovery subject to the 12-year limitation period. The underlying civil suit was dismissed as time-barred.

Outcome

Underlying civil suit dismissed as statute-barred

Facts

In 2008, Celtel Uganda Ltd (predecessor to the 1st Applicant) entered a sublease agreement with the 3rd, 4th and 5th Applicants (kibanja holders) to erect a telecommunication mast on land at Makindye. The Respondent, claiming to be the registered leaseholder of the suit land under a 42-year lease from 1995, complained to Buganda Land Board in July 2008 about the mast erection. The Respondent filed the underlying civil suit in September 2021, thirteen years after the mast was erected. The Applicants brought this application to dismiss the suit as time-barred. The Respondent argued continuous trespass and fraud as exceptions to the limitation period.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Cap 290?
  2. Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi to institute this suit?
  3. Whether the Plaintiff has any cause of action against the Defendants?

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • HCCS No. 761 of 2021 dismissed with costs for being time-barred.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Notice of Motion — Affidavit in Support — Requirement for Simultaneous Service
An affidavit in support of a notice of motion must be served together with the notice of motion as required by Order 52 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Filing an affidavit in support three months after the notice of motion constitutes an illegality that cannot be condoned, and such affidavit must be struck off the record.
Land & Property — Limitation — Recovery of Land — Distinction from Trespass to Land
Where a plaintiff is out of possession of land and is asserting rights of ownership, the claim qualifies as one for recovery of land and not trespass to land. A claim for recovery of land by a plaintiff out of possession is subject to the 12-year limitation period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, even where the dispossession is continuous.
Statutory Interpretation — Limitation Act — Commencement of Limitation Period — Discovery of Fraud
Under Section 25 of the Limitation Act, time starts to run from the date of discovery of fraud. However, where a defendant's action of building a structure on disputed land provides sufficient notice of an adverse claim of ownership, time begins to run from that date despite the plaintiff's later discovery of additional fraudulent information.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Addition of Parties — Commencement of Proceedings for Limitation Purposes
Under Order 1 rule 10(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules, for purposes of limitation, proceedings against any person added or substituted as a defendant are deemed to have begun only on service of summons on that person. However, where the added defendant's liability is rooted in the original defendant's claim, any plea of limitation by the original defendant equally applies to the added defendant.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (8)

  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Kiwanuka Fredrick Kakumutwe v Kibirige Edward (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2017)
  • Odyek Alex v Gena Yokonani and 4 Others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)
  • Amin v Hajji Muhammad (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2016)
  • Konskeier v Goodman Ltd [1928] 1 KB
  • Polyfibre (U) Ltd v Matovu Paul and 3 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 412)
  • Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co. Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Tatu Nanteza v Administrator General and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 192 of 2002)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Airtel_Uganda_Ltd_and_Others_v_Ushanga_Limited_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._2336_of_2024)_[2025]_UGHCLD_283_(12_May_2025)
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.