Kalumba James Ssekito v Damalie Achan [2026] UGHCLD 83

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.

Holding

The court dismissed an application to strike out the defendant's agreement as inadmissible and to bar reliance on it. Treating the application as a preliminary objection, the court held that a preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law unencumbered by contested factual details; where the court must investigate facts, the matter cannot be raised as a preliminary point. The alleged memorandum of understanding was oral and unavailable for inspection, and the applicant cited no legal provision supporting his claim that an agreement affecting co-owned land is void without all proprietors' signatures. The contentious factual allegations required proof at full trial and were better framed as an issue for trial.

Outcome

Application dismissed; the objection to be determined as an issue at the trial of the main suit

Facts

The applicant, plaintiff in the main suit, claimed to be a registered co-proprietor of the suit land, with transfer and registration completed on 8 November 2018. He alleged that around September 2021 he and the respondent entered into an oral memorandum of understanding under which the respondent would backfill the whole of Plot 841, valued by the parties at UGX 50,000,000, after which 25 decimals would be carved off and surrendered. He alleged the respondent neither completed the backfilling nor vacated the land, and sued her for trespass. By this application he sought to have the respondent's agreement struck out as inadmissible and the respondent barred from relying on it, arguing that an agreement affecting co-owned land is void unless executed by all registered proprietors under the Registration of Titles Act and the Contracts Act 2010. The respondent replied that no legal authority was cited, that the applicant was himself a party to the agreement and so did not come with clean hands, and that the objection was frivolous and vexatious. The memorandum was oral and so could not be examined by the court.

Issues

1. Whether the applicant's contention that the defendant's oral agreement was unenforceable for lack of the consent and signatures of all registered co-proprietors could properly be determined as a preliminary objection.
2. Whether the defendant's agreement should be struck out as inadmissible evidence and the defendant barred from relying on it.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Civil Procedure Act Cap 282 s.98
• Judicature Act Cap 16 s.33 (now s.37)
• Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.30
• Registration of Titles Act
• Contracts Act 2010

Cases cited (1)

• El Busaidy v. Commissioner of Lands and Others [2002] 1 KLR 508

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