Kisaka Juma v Mulondo Sulaiman (Miscellaneous Application No. 2620 of 2024)
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
An application to dismiss a land suit on grounds of limitation, lack of cause of action, and undervaluation was dismissed. The court held that where fraud is alleged, limitation begins from discovery of the fraud, not the date of registration. Discovery occurred in 2019 when the applicant registered himself on land allegedly held as a burial ground; suit filed in 2024 was within time. A plaint alleging fraudulent acquisition of burial ground land and attaching certificate of title and photographs disclosed a cause of action. Undervaluation could not be determined on oral assertions alone.
Outcome
Application to dismiss underlying suit denied; underlying suit to proceed to trial
Facts
Both parties are grandsons of the late Juma Kisaka. Applicant's father Amis Genza registered 108.5 acres in 1961, allegedly comprising 58.5 acres as his inheritance and 50 acres held as custodian for family burial ground. Upon Amis Genza's death, his son Golooba Ismail was registered as administrator in 1994 over the 58.5 acres. In 2019, Applicant obtained registration over the remaining 50 acres. Respondent alleges the 50 acres is a burial ground where the late Juma Kisaka and other family members are buried, and that Applicant fraudulently transferred it into his name. Respondent lodged a caveat in 2020. In 2024, Respondent filed a civil suit (HCCS No. 179 of 2024) to recover the land. Applicant moved this application seeking dismissal of the suit on grounds of limitation, lack of cause of action, and undervaluation of the subject matter.
Issues
- Whether Civil Suit No. 179 of 2024 is barred by limitation of time.
- Whether Civil Suit No. 179 of 2024 discloses no cause of action against the Applicant/Defendant.
- Whether the Plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 179 of 2024 under declared the value of the subject matter.
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the Respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Civil Procedure Act s.98
- Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.1
- Civil Procedure Rules O.52 r.3
- Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.30(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.1(e)
- Limitation Act Cap 290 s.5
- Limitation Act Cap 290 s.6
- Limitation Act Cap 290 s.6(2)
Cases cited (7)
- Marimago v Attorney General (1979) HCB 24
- Adyek Alex and Another v Gena Yokonani and Others (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)
- Tatu Nanteza v Administrator General and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 192 of 2002)
- Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
- Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
- Sempa Mbabali v Kidza [1985] HCB
- Kapeke Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.