Wakilii

Govile Richard v Dr. Musa Noah and Another (Civil Suit No. 7 of 2016)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 857 · 2025 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections raised by the 1st Defendant in a civil suit for recovery of rental arrears
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on the merits

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 suit for recovery of rental arrears was not time-barred as it was filed within six years from when the rent became due and demand was made. The preliminary objection on limitation was dismissed. The objection regarding illegality of rental increment was dismissed as it raised mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence. The objection on failure to disclose a cause of action was reserved for determination after trial.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on the merits

Facts

The Plaintiff and 1st Defendant entered into an oral tenancy agreement in July 2008 for property at LRV 3671 Folio 13 Plot 10 Abure Road, Koboko Municipality. The property consisted of twenty rooms, with the 1st Defendant occupying fifteen. On 21 April 2010, Centenary Bank sold the property to the 2nd Defendant to settle the Plaintiff's loan arrears. The 1st Defendant thereafter refused to pay rent to the Plaintiff, claiming the property had been transferred. On 19 March 2015, the High Court in Civil Suit No. 008 of 2010 ruled the transfer fraudulent and ordered the property returned to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff then demanded rental arrears from the 1st Defendant, who refused to pay. The Plaintiff sued for recovery of UGX 157,950,000 in rental arrears. The 1st Defendant raised three preliminary objections: that the claim was time-barred, that the rental increment was illegal, and that the Plaint disclosed no cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff's claim for rental arrears is time-barred under the Limitation Act.
  2. Whether the rental increment was illegal for lack of written contract under the Contracts Act 2010.
  3. Whether the Plaint discloses a cause of action against the 1st Defendant.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection that the Plaintiff's claim is time-barred is dismissed.
  • The preliminary objection that the rental increment was illegal is dismissed and the issue is reserved for trial.
  • The preliminary objection that the Plaint does not disclose a cause of action against the 1st Defendant is reserved for determination after conclusion of trial.

Rules and key headnotes

Preliminary Objections — Nature and Requirements
A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact needs to be ascertained or if the matter involves the exercise of judicial discretion.
Limitation — Commencement of Limitation Period for Rental Arrears
Under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, an action to recover arrears of rent must be brought within six years from the date on which the arrears became due. The limitation period begins to run from the date demand is made and the tenant fails to honour that demand.
Preliminary Objections — Mixed Questions of Law and Fact
A preliminary objection that raises both questions of law and fact and requires consideration of evidence cannot be determined as a preliminary point. Such matters must be reserved for determination after evidence has been led at trial.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (8)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) E.A 697
  • Quick Enterprises Ltd v Kenya Airways Corporation (Civil Case No. 22 of 1999)
  • Avtar Singh Bhamra & Another v Oriental Commercial Bank (Civil Case No. 53 of 2004)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • Makula International Ltd v H.E. Cardinal Nsubuga (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Sam Njuba and Another (Election Appeal No. 26 of 2007)
  • Kapeka Coffee Work Ltd v NPART (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Autogarage v Motokov (1971) E.A 514

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Govile Richard v Dr. Musa Noah and Another (Civil Suit No. 7 of 2016) [2025] UGHC 857 (22 July 2025)
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.