Wakilii

Leonard Msemakweli v Nsubuga Martin and Others [2025] UGHC 1568

High Court · 2025 Preliminary Objection Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections raised by plaintiff against third defendant's written statement of defence and counterclaim in a land ownership dispute
Decision
Third defendant's counterclaim struck out; written statements of defence maintained; matter to proceed to full hearing on 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 upheld two of three preliminary objections raised by the plaintiff. The third defendant's counterclaim was struck out for failure to plead particulars of fraud as required by Order 6 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and for being barred by the twelve-year limitation period under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The written statements of defence were maintained as they raised bonafide triable issues requiring full hearing.

Outcome

Third defendant's counterclaim struck out; written statements of defence maintained; matter to proceed to full hearing on merits

Facts

The plaintiff sued the first and second defendants in October 2023 claiming ownership of land comprised in Bulemezi Block 299 Plot 30. The third defendant was later added to the suit, claiming the land originally belonged to his late father Sheikh Yusuf Kabega Buwembo who held a lease over Block 268 Plot 23 registered in 1982 with a 49-year term from 1979. The third defendant alleged the plaintiff fraudulently obtained title by renaming Plot 23 to Plot 21 and subdividing it into Plots 29 and 30. The plaintiff obtained a leasehold certificate in 1991 which was later converted to freehold in 2014. The third defendant's father died in 1975, and administrators were appointed in 1982 but all have since died. The third defendant only commenced applying for Letters of Administration in 2016, which he has not yet obtained.

Issues

  1. Whether the third defendant's counterclaim discloses a reasonable cause of action against the plaintiff for failure to plead particulars of fraud with specificity.
  2. Whether the third defendant's counterclaim is barred by limitation.
  3. Whether the defendants' written statements of defence are frivolous and vexatious and disclose no reasonable answer to the plaint.

Orders

  • The third defendant's counterclaim is hereby struck out.
  • The Written Statements of Defence are maintained.
  • The suit shall be fixed for hearing on the merits.
  • Costs shall be in the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Pleadings — Fraud — Requirement to Plead Particulars
Where a party relies on fraud in their pleadings, Order 6 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules mandates that particulars of the fraud with dates must be stated. Failure to plead particulars of fraud is a fundamental defect and not a mere irregularity curable by evidence or otherwise. Fraud must be specifically pleaded and proven.
Counterclaim — Requirements for Pleading Fraud
A counterclaim being a suit in itself, the counterclaimant must specifically plead particulars of fraud as required in a plaint. Mere allegations of fraud without stating how and when it was committed, and by whom, are insufficient to constitute a cause of action on fraud.
Limitation — Actions to Recover Land
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. A counterclaim brought more than thirty years after the plaintiff obtained registration is statute barred and cannot be sustained.
Striking Out Pleadings — Frivolous and Vexatious Defence
Under Order 6 rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may strike out a pleading that discloses no reasonable answer or is frivolous and vexatious. However, where a written statement of defence raises bonafide triable issues concerning ownership and presents plausible answers to the claim, it should be maintained to allow full hearing on the merits and avoid multiplicity of suits.
Preliminary Objections — Nature and Scope
A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or arises by clear implication out of pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. A party may raise a preliminary objection at any time before the hearing and if successful, the objection may potentially dispose of the suit.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (14)

  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Stephen Lubega v Barclays Bank [1990-1994] EA 294
  • Nakalanzi Robinah Vs. Danomabor Technical Services Ltd & Anor
  • Madhvani International SA v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2010)
  • Kayondo v Attorney General [1988-1990] HCB 127
  • Yudaya Lutta Musoke v Greenland Bank (U) Ltd in liquidation (HCCS No. 506 of 2001)
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Ltd v West End Distributors [1959] EA 696
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 314
  • Tifu Lukwago v Samwiri Mudde Kizza & Anor [1998] UGSC 9
  • Nagawa & Anor v Segawa & Ors (Civil Suit No. 27 of 2012)
  • Okello v Uganda National Examinations Board (Court of Appeal No. 12 of 1987)
  • Barter Vs Barter [1951] 35 at 36-37
  • Yakobo M.N. Senkungu & 4 Others v Cresensio Mukasa (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2014)
  • Odyek Alex & Anor v Gena Yokonani & 4 Others (Gulu High Court Civil Appeal No. 0009 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Leonard Msemakweli v Nsubuga Martin and Others 2025 UGHC 1568 (26 October 2025)
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.