Wakilii

Barungi v Kasozi (Miscellaneous Application 2946 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 388 · 2023 Application Granted — Main Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out plaint and dismiss main suit arising from Civil Suit No. 1003 of 2023
Decision
Main suit dismissed as time-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 court held that Civil Suit No. 1003 of 2023 was barred by limitation under sections 5 and 6(2) of the Limitations Act. The plaintiff claimed land as a beneficiary of the Estate of the late Halima Nakiwala who died in 1986. The right of action accrued upon her death in 1986, and the suit filed in 2023—37 years later—exceeded the 12-year limitation period for recovery of land. The plaintiff failed to plead any disability exempting her from the limitation period. The suit was dismissed as bad in law.

Outcome

Main suit dismissed as time-barred.

Facts

The applicant, Barungi Richard, is the registered proprietor of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 215 Plot 939. The land originally belonged to the late Yokana Gabiri who sold 6 acres to the late Erenesti Kawesa. Erenesti Kawesa sold 0.71 acres to the late Halima Nakiwala in 1952. Upon subdivision, the residue (Plot 109, 5.29 acres) remained in Kawesa's name. After Kawesa's death, the land was distributed to beneficiaries, with the late Nakitto Sarah receiving Plot 939 Block 215. In 2003, Ahmed Sembatya (a beneficiary of Halima Nakiwala's estate) trespassed on Plot 939. Nakitto Sarah sued in HCCS No. 105 of 2006 and won. In July 2023, Plot 939 was transferred to Nakitto Sarah, who then sold to intermediaries who sold to the applicant. The respondent, Kasozi Madina, a beneficiary of Halima Nakiwala's estate and daughter of Ahmed Sembatya, filed HCCS No. 1003 of 2023 claiming the land. The applicant applied to strike out the suit on grounds including limitation, res judicata, lack of cause of action, and abuse of process.

Issues

  1. Whether HCCS No. 1003 of 2023 is barred by the law on limitation.
  2. Whether HCCS No. 1003 of 2023 should be struck out on ground of res judicata.
  3. Whether the plaint in HCCS No. 1003 of 2023 discloses a cause of action against the applicant.
  4. Whether HCCS No. 1003 of 2023 is an abuse of court process.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Civil Suit No. 1003 of 2023 is dismissed for being barred by limitation under Section 5 and Section 6(2) of the Limitations Act.
  • No order as to costs of the application and Civil Suit No. 1003 of 2023.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Limitation — Recovery of Land — Commencement of Limitation Period
In an action to recover land of a deceased person, the right of action accrues on the date of the deceased's death if the deceased was in possession of the land at death and was the last person entitled to be in possession, in accordance with Section 6(2) of the Limitations Act.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — 12-Year Bar — Actions for Recovery of Land
No action shall be brought to recover land after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued, pursuant to Section 5 of the Limitations Act.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Disability — Pleading Requirements
A litigant claiming exemption from the limitation period on grounds of disability must plead such disability in accordance with Order 7 rules 6 and 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Failure to plead the disability renders the suit time-barred.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Running of Time — Subsequent Disability
Once time has begun to run for purposes of limitation, no subsequent disability or inability to sue stops it from running.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Judicature Act Cap.13 s.33
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.7
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI-71-1 O.7 r.11(d)
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI-71-1 O.7 r.11(e)
  • Civil Procedure Rules SI-71-1 O.7 r.6
  • Limitations Act s.5
  • Limitations Act s.6
  • Limitations Act s.6(2)
  • Limitations Act s.20
  • Limitations Act s.25

Cases cited (4)

  • Miramago v Attorney General [1979] HCB 24
  • Mukooza Micheal Semazzi v Ibulaimu Kironde Kabanda and Another (HCCS No. 889 of 2017)
  • Iga v Makerere University [1972] EA 65
  • Odyeki and Another v Yokonani and 4 Others (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Barungi_v_Kasozi_(Miscellaneous_Application_2946_of_2023)_[2023]_UGHCLD_388_(31_October_2023)
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.