Wakilii

Kalumba James Ssekito v Damalie Achan (Miscellaneous Application No. 347 of 2025 (Arising from Civil Suit No. ICT-00-LD-CS-0884-2021))

High Court · [2026] UGHCLD 83 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application to strike out defendant's agreement as inadmissible evidence in underlying land trespass suit
Decision
Application dismissed; matter to proceed to full trial on the 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

The court dismissed the application to strike out the defendant's agreement. The applicant alleged the oral memorandum of understanding was unenforceable for lacking consent of all co-owners but failed to cite specific legal provisions. The court held that the claims raised contentious factual issues requiring proof through evidence at full trial, not matters suitable for determination as a preliminary objection.

Outcome

Application dismissed; matter to proceed to full trial on the merits

Facts

The applicant is a registered co-proprietor of land. In September 2021, he and the respondent entered into an oral memorandum of understanding whereby the respondent would backfill Plot 841 at a cost of UGX 50,000,000, after which the applicant would transfer 25 decimals of Plot 871 to her. The applicant sued for trespass alleging the respondent refused to fulfill her obligations under the MOU. The applicant then brought an interlocutory application seeking to strike out the defendant's reliance on the agreement, arguing it was unenforceable because it lacked consent and signatures of all registered co-owners. The respondent opposed, arguing the applicant was himself a party to the agreement and came with unclean hands.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's oral memorandum of understanding should be struck out as inadmissible evidence for lacking consent and signatures of all registered landowners.
  2. Whether the application raised a true preliminary objection or a matter requiring full trial and evidence.

Orders

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

Rules and key headnotes

Preliminary Objections — Requirements — Distinction from Factual Disputes
A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law that does not require investigation of facts or adducing of evidence for its determination. Where a court needs to investigate facts or where an assertion bears factual aspects calling for proof, the matter cannot be raised as a preliminary objection and should be determined at full trial.
Admissibility — Interlocutory Applications to Strike Out Evidence
Where the enforceability of an oral agreement and whether it complies with statutory requirements raises contentious factual issues, such matters cannot be determined on an interlocutory application to strike out evidence but must be resolved at full trial through the adducing of evidence.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (1)

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

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kalumba_James_Ssekito_v_Damalie_Achan_(Miscellaneous_Application_No._347_of_2025_(Arising_from_Civil_Suit_No._ICT-00-LD-CS-0884-2021))_[2026]_UGHCLD_83_(14_April_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.