Bisamunyu v Bushenyi District Administration (Civil Suit 338 of 1987)
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
All preliminary objections dismissed with costs. The court held that whether the plaintiff is the owner of the land can only be decided after evidence is tendered. Parties need only plead material facts upon which their claim is founded, not the law. The defendant's objections concerning conversion of land, adequacy of pleadings on assault and battery, limitation, and vicarious liability were all rejected as matters requiring evidence or adequately pleaded.
Outcome
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits
Facts
George Bisamunyu sued Bushenyi District Administration concerning land. The defendant raised five preliminary objections: that the plaintiff was not the registered proprietor (the certificate named Nathan Bisamunyu); that conversion cannot apply to land; that the plaint inadequately pleaded assault and battery; that claims were time-barred; and that the plaint failed to allege servants acted in the course of employment. The plaintiff responded that identity was an evidentiary matter, that other properties besides land were involved, that continuing trespass prevented time bar, and that vicarious liability was adequately pleaded.
Issues
- Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action where the plaintiff's name differs from the registered proprietor named in the certificate of title.
- Whether the tort of conversion can apply to land.
- Whether the plaint adequately pleads assault and battery.
- Whether the claims for conversion, assault and battery are time-barred under the Civil Procedure of Limitation (Misc. Provisions) 1969.
- Whether the plaint adequately alleges that the defendant's servants acted in the course of their employment.
Orders
- All objections raised by Counsel for the defendant are dismissed with costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Civil Procedure of Limitation (Misc. Provisions) 1969 s.2
Cases cited (2)
- Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd v Uganda Airlines Cooperation & 2 Others (1985) HCB 55
- Samuel Kizito Mubiro & Another v G.W. Byensiba & Another (1985) HCB 106
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.