Wakilii

Bwambale v Byabashaija & 10 Others (Civil Suit 24 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 498 · 2023 Suit Dismissed — Time-Barred AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections based on points of law raised by defendants under Order 6 Rule 28 CPR
Decision
Plaintiff's suit dismissed on preliminary objection for being 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

Held that the plaintiff's suit for recovery of land was time-barred. The plaintiff pleaded facts showing the cause of action arose in 2003 when defendants commenced trespass, yet the suit was filed in 2020, 17 years later. The 12-year limitation period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Cap 80 had expired. Continuous trespass does not exempt a claim from limitation where the plaintiff delayed exercising the right to sue beyond the statutory period. Suit dismissed as time-barred.

Outcome

Plaintiff's suit dismissed on preliminary objection for being time-barred

Facts

The plaintiff claimed to be the registered owner of land comprised in LRV 1358 Folio 25, Plot 1 Block 36, Nyakatonzi, Kasese District, which he purchased in 2003. In his plaint, the plaintiff stated that in 2003 the defendants together with others started using the suit land for grazing and cultivation without his consent. In 2018, the 1st and 2nd defendants planted a boundary hedge claiming ownership of 180 acres and employed surveyors to demarcate the land. The plaintiff sought declarations of ownership and trespass, eviction, vacant possession, demolition of structures, mesne profits from 2003, general damages, and a permanent injunction. The plaintiff filed suit in 2020. The defendants raised a preliminary objection that the suit was time-barred.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit was time-barred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Cap 80
  2. When the plaintiff's cause of action arose for purposes of computing the limitation period
  3. Whether trespass as a continuous tort is subject to the law of limitation

Orders

  • Suit dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules as time-barred contrary to Section 5 of the Limitation Act Cap 80.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Preliminary Objections — Nature and Determination — Demurrer Assuming Facts as Pleaded
A preliminary objection is in the nature of a demurrer and raises a point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct. A party is bound by his own pleadings once submitted before court and relied upon by the opposing party to raise a point of law.
Limitation of Actions — Recovery of Land — 12-Year Period under Limitation Act
Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Cap 80, no action shall be brought to recover land after the expiration of 12 years from the date the right of action accrued. Under Section 6(1), where a person entitled to land has been dispossessed, the right of action is deemed to have accrued on the date of dispossession.
Trespass to Land — Continuous Tort — Application of Limitation Act
Trespass to land, though a continuous tort, is subject to the law of limitation. Since trespass to land deals with possessory rights, an action for trespass to land falls squarely within the scope of 'actions to recover land' whose limitation period is prescribed by the Limitation Act. The person with the right to sue may exercise that right immediately after trespass commences, at any time during its continuance, or after it has ended, but subject to the law on limitation.
Limitation Statutes — Purpose and Policy — Protection of Defendants from Stale Claims
Statutory provisions imposing limitation periods serve three purposes: to protect defendants from stale claims about which records may no longer exist and witnesses may have no recollection; to encourage plaintiffs to institute proceedings as soon as reasonably possible; and to ensure that after a given time a person may regard as finally closed an incident which might have led to a claim against him.
Limitation — Commencement of Cause of Action — Plaintiff Bound by Own Pleadings
Where a plaintiff clearly pleads that defendants commenced trespass in a particular year and seeks mesne profits from that year, the cause of action is deemed to have arisen in that year for limitation purposes. The plaintiff cannot subsequently contend that the cause of action arose at a later date based on different acts by the defendants, as this would amount to a significant deviation from the plaintiff's own pleadings.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (8)

  • Yaya Farajallah v Obur Ronald & 3 Others (HCCA No. 81 of 2018)
  • Kiwanuka Kakumutwe v Kibirige Edward (Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2017)
  • Lutaaya v. Stirling Civil Engineering Company
  • Birkett v James [1977] 2 All ER 801
  • Bernard Tumuhimbise & 3 Others v Attorney General and Uganda Wildlife Authority (HCCS No. 778 of 2003)
  • Peter Mangeni t/a Makerere Institute of Commerce v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1995)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distillers Ltd [1969] EALR 196
  • Donovan v Gwentoys Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 472

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Bwambale v Byabashaija & 10 Others (Civil Suit 24 of 2020) [2023] UGHC 498 (12 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.