Wakilii

Katuramu and Another v Bundibugyo District Local Government (Civil Suit 7 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGHCLD 167 · 2023 Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of land and damages for trespass, determined on preliminary objection
Decision
Suit dismissed as time-barred under the Limitation Act

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 High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of land and damages for trespass on preliminary objection. The court held that although the plaint disclosed a cause of action despite a typographical error in the land description, the suit was time-barred under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiffs' right of action accrued in 1967 when the defendant entered the land and expired in 1979. Subsequent correspondences between the parties did not constitute acknowledgement sufficient to revive the extinct cause of action. The court applied the principle that trespass to land, dealing with possessory rights, falls within actions to recover land subject to the twelve-year limitation period.

Outcome

Suit dismissed as time-barred under the Limitation Act

Facts

The plaintiffs, administrators of the estate of the late Kalisa Yokasi Ngondu, sued Bundibugyo District Local Government claiming that land at Block 5, Plot 5 and 8 at Bwamba measuring approximately 2.81 acres belonged to the deceased's estate. They alleged that Bundibugyo District Hospital trespassed on the land around 1967 and constructed staff houses. The deceased attempted to obtain compensation from district authorities but died in 2007 before being compensated. The plaintiffs took over processing the claims, had the land surveyed and valued at UGX 250,000,000 market value, and filed suit seeking declarations, damages, mesne profits and costs. The defendant denied the allegations and raised preliminary objections that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action and that the suit was barred by limitation, having occupied the land unchallenged since 1967.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendant.
  2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation under the Limitation Act.

Orders

  • The first preliminary objection (that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action) is overruled.
  • The second preliminary objection (that the suit is barred by limitation) is upheld.
  • The suit is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Cause of Action — Typographical Errors in Land Description
A typographical error in the description of land in a plaint (stating Block 8 instead of Block 5) does not defeat a cause of action where the correct description appears in annexures to the plaint and the error can be cured by amendment. The court must look at the plaint and its annexures in determining whether a cause of action is disclosed.
Land & Property — Limitation — Actions to Recover Land — Twelve-Year Period
Under section 5 of the Limitation Act, no action shall be brought to recover land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued. At the expiration of this period, the title of the claimant to the land is extinguished by operation of section 16.
Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Limitation Period — Possessory Rights
Trespass to land deals with possessory rights to land and therefore falls squarely within the scope of actions to recover land whose limitation period is prescribed by the Limitation Act. The Limitation Act applies to actions in trespass to land.
Land & Property — Limitation — Acknowledgement — Revival of Cause of Action
Acknowledgement by a defendant of a plaintiff's right can revive a cause of action under section 22 of the Limitation Act, but such acknowledgement must be clear and unequivocal. Mere correspondences and discussions between parties exploring amicable settlement do not constitute acknowledgement sufficient to revive an extinct cause of action.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Disability — Pleading Requirements
Where a cause of action is barred by limitation, a plaintiff may only obtain protection from the limitation period by specifically pleading disability as required by Order 18 rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules. A plaint that does not plead disability where the cause of action is barred by limitation is bad in law.
Land & Property — Adverse Possession — Uninterrupted Possession — Acquisition of Title
Uninterrupted and uncontested possession of land for the period specified in the Limitation Act, hostile to the rights and interests of the true owner, is a legally recognized mode of acquisition of ownership of land. The Limitation Act lays down a rule of substantive law declaring that after the lapse of the prescribed period, the title ceases to exist and not merely the remedy.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (11)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International (SCCA No. 2 of 2001)
  • Iga v Makerere University [1972] EA 66
  • Dr. Arinaitwe Raphael and 37 Others v Attorney General (HCCS No. 201 of 2012)
  • E.M.N Lutaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co. (SCCA No. 11 of 2002)
  • Amin Aroga v Hajji Muhammad Arule (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2016)
  • Kiwanuka Fredrick Kakumutwe v Kibirige Edward (Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2017)
  • Odyeki and Another v Yokonani and 4 Others (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)
  • F.X. Miramago v Attorney General [1979] HCB 24
  • Perry v Clissold [1907] AC 73
  • Masailabu v Simon Mwanga (SCCA No. 4 of 1993)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Katuramu_and_Another_v_Bundibugyo_District_Local_Government_(Civil_Suit_7_of_2019)_[2023]_UGHCLD_167_(31_May_2023)
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.