Kulusum v Bukenya & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 220 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 a suit to recover land brought more than 27 years after the alleged dispossession in 1994-1995 was statute barred under section 5 of the Limitation Act Cap 80, which bars actions to recover land after twelve years from the date of dispossession. The plaint was rejected under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules as it disclosed on its face that the claim was barred by law.
Outcome
Main suit rejected as statute barred; application allowed
Facts
The Respondents/Plaintiffs sued the Applicant/Defendant claiming land comprised in Buddu FRV 67 Folio 21 measuring 257 acres, alleging it belonged to the estate of their late father Sabiti Lubega. The Respondents claimed the Applicant was not entitled to hold the land and sought cancellation of her registration. The Applicant denied the claims, produced a Ugandan passport proving citizenship, and asserted she and her late husband had occupied the land uninterrupted for 27 years. The Respondents pleaded in paragraph 5(g) of their plaint that between 1994 and 1995, the Applicant's husband forcefully evicted them from the suit land. The Applicant brought a miscellaneous application to reject the plaint on grounds including limitation.
Issues
- Whether Civil Suit No. 100 of 2022 disclosed a cause of action against the Applicant.
- Whether Civil Suit No. 100 of 2022 was time barred under the Limitation Act.
- Whether Civil Suit No. 100 of 2022 was frivolous or vexatious.
Orders
- HCCS No. 100 of 2022 is hereby rejected with costs to the Applicant/Defendant.
- The Application is allowed with costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (2)
- Ababiri Muhamood and 4 Others v Mukomba Anastansia and Another (Civil Suit No. 22 of 2015)
- Hajati Ziribagwa and Another v Yakobo Ntate (HCCS No. 102 of 2009)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.