Kaseeta & Another v Kaseeta & 4 Others (Civil Suit 19 of 2022)
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 seeking to challenge distribution of an estate and recover estate property was barred by limitation under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiffs' claim accrued in 1984 when the testator died, but suit was filed in 2022, nearly 38 years later. The 12-year limitation period had expired. The preliminary objection was upheld, the plaint was rejected under Order 7 rules 6 and 11(d) CPR, and the suit was dismissed with costs to the defendants.
Outcome
Suit dismissed on preliminary objection with costs to the defendants
Facts
The 1st plaintiff is the daughter of the late Isiraheli Kaseeta. The 2nd plaintiff is a son and administrator of the estate of late Kaseeta Kellen Kobusingye, and a grandson of late Isiraheli Kaseeta. The 1st defendant is a son of late Isiraheli Kaseeta. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants are the grandchildren of late Isiraheli Kaseeta and sons of late Byarugaba Daudi. The plaintiffs sought declarations that the will of late Isiraheli Kaseeta was null and void, that certain properties formed part of his estate, and orders for vacant possession, demolition, injunctions, and damages. The defendants contended that Isiraheli Kaseeta died testate leaving a will dated 25 September 1983 appointing the 1st defendant and Byarugaba Daudi as executors, and that the estate was distributed among beneficiaries. The plaintiffs alleged that since 26 April 1984 when the testator died, the 1st defendant had been intermeddling with estate property, and that in 2000 the 1st defendant sold 10 acres of the estate. The defendants raised a preliminary objection that the suit was barred by limitation. The 3rd defendant filed no defence and the matter proceeded against him under Order 9 Rule 10 CPR.
Issues
- Whether the instant suit is barred by limitation.
- What remedies are available to the parties.
Orders
- Civil Suit No. 019/2022 (formerly Civil Suit No. 01/2022) is barred by limitation and is hereby declared so.
- The plaint is rejected under Order 7 rule 6 and 11(d) of the CPR and the matter is dismissed.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.