Wakilii

Kalenzi Apofia Tageyerawo and Others v Naisanga Monica and Another (Civil Suit No. 115 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHC 115 · 2026 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for distribution of estate property, with preliminary objection raised by defendants
Decision
Suit dismissed as time barred

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 was time barred under the Limitation Act. The court found that no valid trust was created by the Will of the late Tolofisa Kitimbo, as the wording lacked clear intention to impose fiduciary obligations and the conduct of parties over decades was inconsistent with a trust relationship. Section 19(1)(b) of the Limitation Act, which exempts trust property from limitation, did not apply. The cause of action accrued in 1996 or during the lifetime of the late Nkulega John, and the twelve-year limitation period under sections 5 and 20 of the Limitation Act had expired before the suit was filed in 2023.

Outcome

Suit dismissed as time barred

Facts

The plaintiffs, beneficiaries of the estate of the late Tolofisa Kitimbo who died on 20 June 1996, sought distribution of land allegedly bequeathed to all her children by Will. The Will stated the land was bequeathed to her children "led by John Nkulega". The late Nkulega John took possession of the land in the 1980s, obtained letters of administration to Tolofisa's estate without objection, and remained in occupation until his death in 2010. The defendants, administrators of Nkulega John's estate, continued in possession. The plaintiffs filed suit in 2023, claiming the defendants held the land as trustees and were obliged to distribute it. The defendants raised preliminary objections that the suit was time barred and disclosed no cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether this suit is statute barred by the law of limitation?
  2. Whether the plaint does not disclose a cause of action?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Civil Suit No. 115 of 2023 dismissed for being time barred.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Trusts — Creation of Trust — Three Certainties — Certainty of Intention
For a trust to be validly created, whether express or implied, the law requires the presence of three certainties: certainty of intention to create a trust, certainty that the trust assets are unambiguously defined, and certainty that the beneficiaries are capable of being ascertained. A trust will not be inferred lightly and the intention to create a trust must be clear, unequivocal, and manifested either expressly or by necessary implication.
Trusts — Testamentary Trusts — Interpretation of Wills — Distinction Between Trust and Family Arrangement
In the context of a Will, the court must ascertain whether the testator intended to impose binding fiduciary obligations on the alleged trustee, or merely appointed a person to manage or oversee property without creating a trust. A phrase such as "led by" in a Will is more consistent with a role of leadership or administration within a family arrangement rather than the creation of a legally enforceable trust.
Trusts — Proof of Trust — Conduct of Parties — Acquiescence
Prolonged acquiescence by alleged beneficiaries, including failure to challenge occupation or demand distribution during the alleged trustee's lifetime and failure to contest administration of the alleged trustee's estate, negates the existence of a continuing trust relationship.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Exception for Trust Property — Section 19(1)(b) Limitation Act
Section 19(1)(b) of the Limitation Act, which excludes the application of limitation where an action is brought by a beneficiary to recover trust property from a trustee, only applies where a valid and subsisting trust is established. In the absence of clear proof of a trust, a plaintiff cannot invoke section 19(1)(b) to defeat the statutory limitation period.
Succession & Estates — Limitation — Actions for Distribution of Estate — Section 20 Limitation Act
Under section 20 of the Limitation Act, no action in respect of any personal estate of a deceased person shall be brought after the expiration of twelve years from the date when the right to receive the share or interest accrued. A suit filed more than twelve years after the testator's death or after the right to distribution became apparent is time barred.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Accrual of Cause of Action — Once Statute Barred, Always Statute Barred
The principle underlying the law on limitation is that once statute barred, always statute barred. Once a cause of action has accrued, time begins to run against the plaintiff and no subsequent disability or inability stops it. Once a suit is statute barred, any subsequent developments cannot revive it.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (2)

  • FX Miramago v Attorney General [1979] HCB 24
  • Bristol & West Building Society v Mathew [1998] Ch 1

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kalenzi Apofia Tageyerawo and Others v Naisanga Monica and Another (Civil Suit No. 115 of 2023) [2026] UGHC 115 (30 January 2026)
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.