Wakilii

Faridah Nantale V Attorney general & 5 Others (Civil Suit No. 97 of 2011)

High Court · [2015] UGHCLD 90 · 2015 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on oral preliminary objection seeking rejection of plaint and dismissal of suit
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to trial

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

Court dismissed defendants' preliminary objections. On limitation, the court held that where the date of alleged alienation is disputed, evidence is required and the matter cannot be determined by preliminary objection. On cause of action, the plaint disclosed all essential elements: plaintiff's claimed right as administrator of estate holding mailo land, violation through alleged fraudulent conversion to freehold and transfer to defendants, and defendants' alleged liability. Preliminary objections must raise pure points of law without requiring evidence beyond pleadings.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to trial

Facts

The plaintiff, as administratrix of her late father's estate, sued claiming that defendants fraudulently converted mailo land (Kibuga Block 7 Plots 16A-28A) registered in her father's name into freehold title (FRV 219 Folio 4) in 2006, which was then registered to the 3rd defendant and subsequently leased to the 4th, 5th and 6th defendants. Defendants orally raised preliminary objections that the suit was time-barred (claiming vesting occurred in 1962) and disclosed no cause of action. There was a factual dispute whether the alleged alienation occurred in 1962 or 2006.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by statute of limitation.
  2. Whether the suit discloses a cause of action against the defendants.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection on ground of limitation overruled.
  • Preliminary objection that plaint discloses no cause of action overruled.
  • Both grounds of objection dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Distinction Between Rejection of Plaint and Dismissal on Preliminary Point of Law
A distinction must be drawn between an application to reject a plaint under Order 7 rule 11 and a preliminary point of law. Where a matter of law such as limitation is raised, the proper course is to apply to have the suit dismissed on a preliminary matter of law rather than seek rejection of the plaint under Order 7 rule 11.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Limitation — Requirement for Evidence
Where there is a factual dispute as to when a cause of action arose for purposes of limitation, evidence must be adduced to enable the court to determine which position is correct. The date of alienation is not a defect inherently apparent from the face of the plaint, and cannot be determined by preliminary objection without evidence.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Nature and Limits
A preliminary objection is in the nature of a demurrer and must raise a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. Where a court must go beyond the pleadings and rely on evidence, or where judicial discretion is sought, it is improper to proceed by way of preliminary objection.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Elements Required for Disclosure
A cause of action is disclosed in a plaint if three essential elements are pleaded: the existence of the plaintiff's right, violation of that right, and the defendant's liability for that violation. If a plaint shows that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right has been violated, and that the defendant is liable, then a cause of action has been disclosed and any omission or defect may be cured by amendment.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11(d)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11(a)

Cases cited (10)

  • Wycliffe Kiggundu Kato v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1993)
  • Nurdin Ali Dewji & Others v G.M.M. Meghji & Co. and Others (1953) 20 EACA 132
  • Yudaya Lutta Musoke v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (High Court Civil Suit No. 506 of 2001)
  • Mukisa Biscuits v Western Distributors [1969] EA 696
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 514
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Essaji v Solanki [1968] EA 218
  • Mulindwa Birimumaso v Government Central Purchasing Corporation (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2002)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council & Another (Supreme Court Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association [1970] 1 WLR 688

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Faridah Nantale V Attorney general & 5 Others (Civil Suit No. 97 of 2011) [2015] UGHCLD 90 (15 June 2015)
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.