Wakilii

Hammann Ltd & Anor v Ssali & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 449 of 2013)

High Court · [2013] UGHCLD 84 · 2013 Application Granted — Plaint Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Order 7 rr.11(a)(e) and 19 CPR for rejection of plaint, arising from civil suit for land recovery
Decision
Plaint struck out and suit dismissed with costs against all defendants

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that the plaint was time barred under the Limitation Act s.5, which bars actions for land recovery after twelve years. The plaintiffs lost land through alleged fraud in 1978 and 1984 but filed suit only in 2006, ten years after the limitation period expired. The court rejected the argument that limitation does not run against fraud-based claims, holding that plaintiffs must plead when they discovered the fraud under s.25. The court further held that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against the applicants, contained incurable contradictions regarding fraud particulars, and could not be saved by amendment. Application allowed, plaint struck out.

Outcome

Plaint struck out and suit dismissed with costs against all defendants

Facts

The respondents/plaintiffs filed High Court Civil Suit No. 756 of 2006 seeking to recover land they alleged was fraudulently taken from them in 1978 by the 1st Defendant and in 1984 by the 2nd Defendant. The plaint averred that in 1999 the 3rd Defendant leased part of the suit land to the 4th Defendant, which was operating a quarry on it. The applicants/3rd and 4th defendants applied under Order 7 r.11 CPR to have the plaint rejected on grounds that the suit was time barred and disclosed no cause of action. The respondents argued that the cause of action arose in 1999 and that limitation does not run in fraud cases. The plaint contained contradictions regarding whether the 3rd Defendant was incorporated and whether it held a lease or mailo interest.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint in High Court Civil Suit No. 756 of 2006 is time barred.
  2. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the 3rd and 4th Defendants.

Orders

  • Application allowed with costs to the 1st and 2nd Applicants.
  • Plaint in Civil Suit No. 756 of 2006 is struck out.
  • The suit is dismissed as against all the Defendants with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation of Actions — Recovery of Land — Twelve-Year Period — Effect of Time Bar
Under the Limitation Act s.5, no action for recovery of land may be brought after the expiration of twelve years from the date the right of action accrued. Where a plaintiff fails to plead grounds of exemption from limitation in accordance with Order 7 r.6 CPR, a suit that is barred by statute must be rejected because the court is barred from granting relief.
Limitation — Actions Founded on Fraud — Discovery of Fraud — Burden to Plead
Under the Limitation Act s.25, in actions founded on fraud the limitation period does not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered or could with reasonable diligence have discovered the fraud. This must be pleaded. The court has no power to extend limitation periods fixed by statute merely because an action is founded on fraud; the plaintiff must raise a plea conforming to s.25 and showing when they became aware of the fraud.
Rejection of Plaint — Cause of Action — Fraud Against Transferee — Requirement to Plead Privity or Notice
To impeach a lease obtained by a defendant from a third party through fraud, the plaintiff must plead not only fraud on the part of the third party but also that the defendant was either privy to the fraud or was aware of it and took advantage of it. Fraud must be attributable to the transferee. The plaintiff must also plead that the defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of the fraud.
Pleadings — Contradictions and Defects — Amendment — Incurable Defects
Where a plaint contains contradictions and defects that go to the substance of the cause of action, these cannot be cured by amendment. Once a plaint discloses no cause of action, an amendment cannot cure it because in effect there is nothing to amend. The court's discretion to allow amendment under Order 6 r.19 CPR must be exercised judiciously and not in contravention of statutory law.
Liability for Counsel's Negligence — Client Bound by Counsel's Acts
A client is bound by the actions and omissions of their counsel. Negligent drafting of a plaint or incompetence in pleading is not an excuse for a client to escape the consequences of their counsel's mistakes. If counsel acted negligently or incompetently, the client's remedy is to sue for professional negligence, not to seek relief from statutory limitation on grounds of counsel's error.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (21)

  • Polyfibre (U) Ltd v Matovu Paul & 3 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 412)
  • Madhivani International SA v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2004)
  • Auto Garage & Others v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 514
  • Motorcare (U) Ltd v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 638 of 2005)
  • Julius Rwabirumi v Hope Bahimbisomwe (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2002)
  • Henry NK Wabui & Another v Rogers Hanns Kiyonga & 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 102 of 2009)
  • Vincent Rule Opio v Attorney General [1990-1992] KALR 68
  • Onesiforo Bamuwayira & 2 Others v Attorney General (1973) HCB 87
  • John Oitamong v Mohammed Olinga [1985] HCB 86
  • Al Hajj Nasser N Sebaggala v Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1999)
  • Hasmani v National Bank of India Ltd (1937) 4 EACA 55
  • Fredrick JK Zaabwe v Orient Bank & 5 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • David Sajjaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
  • Ssessazi Kulabirawo v Robinah Nalubega (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2002)
  • Buffalo Tungsten Inc v SGS (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 06 of 2012)
  • Muhammad Kasasa v Jaspher Buyonga Sirasi Bwogi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2008)
  • Captain Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd & Another v NPART (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Re Application by Mustapha Ramathan (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1996)
  • Hilton v Satton Steam Laundry [1946] 1 KB 61

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hammann Ltd & Anor v Ssali & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 449 of 2013) [2013] UGHCLD 84 (22 November 2013)
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.