Wakilii

Assimwe & Ors v Ssozi & 2 Ors (HCT-05-CS-0003-1998)

High Court · [2005] UGHC 115 · 2005 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for land recovery with preliminary objection to jurisdiction raised by third defendant
Decision
Suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; matter should be brought before the Tribunal established under the Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust Act

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 has no jurisdiction to hear matters involving the Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust. Section 14 of the Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust Act Cap. 95 grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Tribunal established under the Act to hear and determine all matters arising under the Act or relating to any non-performing asset transferred to the trust. The suit was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; matter should be brought before the Tribunal established under the Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust Act

Facts

The plaintiffs sought to recover land they claimed was wrongly included in property held by the third defendant, the Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust. Block 37 Plot 10 was registered in the name of James Sozi in 1980 and transferred into the names of a donor of power of attorney in 1983. The suit was filed in 1998. After the scheduling conference, counsel for the third defendant raised three preliminary objections: that the suit was time-barred under limitation law; that the High Court lacked jurisdiction over matters involving Non-Performing Assets under the Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust Act Cap. 95; and that no statutory notice was served on the third defendant as required under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap. 72.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear matters involving Non-Performing Assets under the Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust Act Cap. 95.
  2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation having been filed in 1998 regarding land registered in 1980 and transferred in 1983.
  3. Whether statutory notice was properly served on the third defendant before institution of the suit.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Jurisdiction — Statutory Ousting of High Court Jurisdiction — Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust Act
Section 14 of the Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust Act Cap. 95 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Tribunal established under the Act to hear and determine all matters arising under the Act or relating to any non-performing asset transferred to the trust, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Jurisdiction — Determination Before Merits
Where a preliminary objection to jurisdiction is upheld, the court should dismiss the case and need not determine other objections which become moot.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Haruna Kigongo v Non Performing Assets Recovery Trust (Miscellaneous Application No. 859 of 2000)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Assimwe & Ors v Ssozi & 2 Ors (HCT-05-CS-0003-1998) [2005] UGHC 115 (27 April 2005)
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.