George 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. The question of whether the plaintiff is the owner of the land can only be decided after evidence is tendered. Conversion claims may apply to properties other than land. The plaint adequately pleads vicarious liability. Claims for assault and battery are not time barred where plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to re-enter land.
Outcome
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter proceeds to trial on merits
Facts
The plaintiff George Bisamunyu brought suit against Bushenyi District Administration regarding land. The defendant raised preliminary objections: (1) the certificate of title names Nathan Bisamunyu, not George Bisamunyu, thus plaintiff has no cause of action; (2) the claim is based on conversion, which applies only to chattels, not land; (3) the plaint alleges assault and battery but does not identify who committed these acts; (4) the conversion and assault claims are time barred; (5) the plaint fails to allege that defendants' servants acted in the course of employment. The plaintiff responded that identity is a matter for evidence, that other properties besides land were converted, that continuing attempts to re-enter land prevent time bar, and that the plaint adequately pleads vicarious liability.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action when the registered proprietor on the certificate of title differs from the plaintiff's name.
- Whether a claim for conversion can properly apply to land.
- Whether the plaint adequately pleads assault and battery.
- Whether the claims for conversion, assault and battery are time barred.
- Whether the plaint adequately pleads vicarious liability by alleging acts were committed by defendants' servants in the course of employment.
Orders
- All preliminary objections raised by counsel for the defendant are dismissed.
- Costs to the plaintiff.
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 Corporation & 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.