Wakilii

Hajati Mariamu N.v Almanzane Jjuko (Civil Suit No. 287 of 1991)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 9 · 1993 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection raised by defendant challenging the suit on grounds of limitation
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; case to proceed to trial on 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 a claim for specific performance of a contract falls within the equitable exception under section 4(6) of the Limitation Act and is not time-barred by the six-year limitation period under section 4(1)(a). Further held that for recovery of land under section 6, the right to sue accrued when the defendant refused to execute the formal lease in 1990, not when the sale agreement was made in 1977. The suit filed in 1992 was therefore within the twelve-year limitation period. Preliminary objection dismissed.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; case to proceed to trial on merits

Facts

The late Erisa Mujoobe held land under customary tenure. On 17 June 1977, the defendant invited him to convert his tenure to leasehold. On 24 August 1977, Mujoobe paid UGX 6,000 as premium for plot 13 and agreed to pay UGX 80 monthly rent for 49 years. The agreement contemplated execution of a formal lease by a lawyer, but neither party took steps to execute it. Mujoobe died in February 1987. The plaintiff, as administrator of Mujoobe's estate, contacted the defendant on 6 December 1990 requesting execution of the lease, but the defendant refused. The plaintiff filed suit on 29 July 1992 seeking specific performance and general damages. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit was time-barred under sections 4 and 6 of the Limitation Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of a lease agreement dated 24 August 1977 was time-barred under section 4 of the Limitation Act.
  2. Whether the plaintiff's claim to recover land was time-barred under section 6 of the Limitation Act.
  3. When the right of action accrued for purposes of calculating the limitation period.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Specific Performance — Exception to Limitation Period
An action for specific performance of a contract falls within the equitable exception under section 4(6) of the Limitation Act and is not subject to the six-year limitation period prescribed by section 4(1)(a) for actions founded on contract.
Recovery of Land — Accrual of Right of Action
For purposes of section 6 of the Limitation Act, the right to sue for recovery of land accrues not from the date of the sale agreement, but from the moment the defendant refuses to perform his obligation to transfer or execute a formal lease.
Preliminary Objections — Standard of Review
When deciding a preliminary objection based on limitation, the court looks only at the plaint and decides the matter in light of the facts alleged and the prayers in the plaint, assuming the allegations of fact to be true for that purpose.
Limitation Act — Interruption by Death
Where a party to a contract dies during the running of a limitation period and before the period expires, the limitation period does not automatically bar the claim of the deceased's legal representative if the claim is brought within time from the date the right of action accrued.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (1)

  • Sachamia and Another v Hirji Pitamber (1958) EA 503

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hajati Mariamu N.v Almanzane Jjuko (Civil Suit No. 287 of 1991) [1993] UGHC 9 (30 December 1993)
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.