Wakilii

Hadija Dombiyo v Mujumbi Deo and Luwero District Local Government (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 766 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Chief Magistrate Court ruling dismissing suit on preliminary objection
Decision
Appeal dismissed; lower court ruling affirmed

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

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Chief Magistrate's ruling that the trespass suit was time-barred. The court held that preliminary objections may be raised orally if they arise by clear implication from the pleadings, not only through express pleading. The court further held that the Limitation Act applies to continuous trespass claims and that the appellant's suit, filed in 2021 regarding trespass commencing in 2002, was seven years out of time.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; lower court ruling affirmed

Facts

The appellant, as administratrix of an estate, sued the respondents in 2021 alleging that the first respondent had trespassed on suit land since 2002 by establishing nursery beds for forest trees without consent. The respondents filed a written statement of defence denying trespass and alleging they had been in possession since the 1960s. During trial, the respondents' counsel raised a preliminary objection that the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act. The Chief Magistrate upheld the objection and dismissed the suit. The appellant appealed, arguing that continuous trespass is not subject to limitation and that the preliminary objection should not have been entertained as it was not pleaded in the written statement of defence.

Issues

  1. Whether a preliminary objection can only be raised through pleadings or may be raised orally during proceedings.
  2. Whether the trial magistrate correctly dismissed the suit as time-barred under the Limitation Act despite the appellant's claim of continuous trespass.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Ruling of the Trial Chief Magistrate upholding the preliminary objection and dismissing Civil Suit No. 131 of 2021 affirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Mode of Raising — Whether Preliminary Objection Must Be Pleaded
A preliminary objection may be raised orally during proceedings if it arises by clear implication from the pleadings on record, and is not confined exclusively to being raised through express pleading in a party's written statement of defence.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Nature and Requirements — Pure Point of Law
A preliminary objection consists of a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and it cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.
Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Continuous Trespass — Application of Limitation Act
The Limitation Act applies to claims for continuous trespass to land. A person with a right to sue for continuous trespass may exercise that right at any time during the trespass or after it has ended, but remains subject to the twelve-year limitation period under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Land & Property — Limitation of Actions — Recovery of Land — Twelve-Year Period
Under section 5 of the Limitation Act, no action to recover any land may be brought after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued, and this provision applies to all land tenures referred to in Article 237(3) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Sanyu Lwanga Musoke v Sam Galiwanga (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1995)
  • Banco Arab Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] 1 EA 696
  • Francis Xavier Ssempira v Aline Nabami Kaboy (Civil Suit No. 877 of 2021)
  • Mathias Lwanga Kaganda v UEB (Civil Suit No. 124 of 2003)
  • Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd [2003] UGSC 39

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hadija Dombiyo v Mujumbi Deo and Luwero District Local Government (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 766 (12 August 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.