Hajji Zubid Kasim Walugembe v Nandawula Sharon [2026] UGHCLD 5
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 court dismissed an interlocutory application to strike out a counterclaim on grounds of want of locus standi and no cause of action. Having himself sued the respondent in the main suit, the applicant could not deny her standing to defend and counterclaim; a party sued has standing before the court. The respondent's assertion of a beneficial interest in the suit land as a daughter of the deceased registered proprietor amounted to a valid cause of action requiring investigation at trial. Questions of the merits of the defence and counterclaim were matters for trial, and the grounds raised could be framed as issues in the main suit. The application was premature.
Outcome
Application dismissed as premature; the counterclaim stands and the main suit proceeds to trial
Facts
The applicant filed Civil Suit No. 439 of 2025 against the respondent and two others alleging breach of a purchase agreement for land comprised in Kyadondo Block 181 Plot 4274 at Kiwologoma. The respondent filed a written statement of defence together with a counterclaim seeking, among other things, a declaration that the applicant's registration on the suit land was illegal and fraudulent and an order directing the Registrar of Titles to cancel the fraudulent entries on the certificate of title. The respondent asserted that she is a biological daughter of the late Edmond Luyomba Kizza, the original registered proprietor of the suit land, and a beneficiary of his estate. She contended that although the land had initially been sold by the administrator of her late father's estate to the persons from whom the applicant derived his interest, the transfers were effected fraudulently and without the consent of the beneficiaries, and that the applicant had not carried out adequate due diligence. The applicant then applied to have the counterclaim dismissed for want of locus standi and for disclosing no cause of action.
Issues
- Whether the respondent, as a beneficiary of an intestate estate without letters of administration, had locus standi to file a counterclaim in respect of the suit land.
- Whether the counterclaim in Civil Suit No. 439 of 2025 disclosed a cause of action against the applicant and should be dismissed at an interlocutory stage.
Orders
- Application is dismissed.
- Each party to bear their own costs.
- Parties advised to focus on the main suit fixed for hearing on 20th April 2026 at 10.00am.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.2
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.