Lusasizi & Others v Male (Miscellaneous Application 235 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
The High Court dismissed an interlocutory application seeking to strike out a trespass suit. The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action for trespass, the suit was not time-barred as trespass is a continuing tort and the action was brought within 12 years of discovery, and a misnomer in naming the first defendant was a technicality that could be corrected by amendment without causing injustice.
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; misnomer in defendant's name ordered corrected; main suit to proceed
Facts
The respondent filed a civil suit for trespass against four defendants relating to land at Bugabo village, Kiboga district. The applicants/defendants filed this interlocutory application seeking to dismiss or strike out the suit on three grounds: failure to disclose a cause of action because the respondent did not attach documents proving his status as beneficiary of the deceased's estate or the deceased's ownership of the land; that the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act as the respondent became aware of the alleged trespass in 2006 and 2014 but only sued in 2024; and that the first applicant was incorrectly named as John Musasizi alias John Lusasi Bahemuka when his actual name is Lusasizi John. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that trespass is a continuing tort, that he would tender relevant documents at trial, and that the naming error was a typographical mistake.
Issues
- Whether civil suit no. 0103 of 2024 discloses a cause of action against the applicants.
- Whether civil suit no. 0103 of 2024 is time barred.
- Whether civil suit no. 0103 of 2024 should be struck out against the 1st applicant for suing a non-existent party.
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- Application dismissed.
- The name of the 1st defendant in civil suit no. 0103 of 2024 be corrected and replaced to read Lusasizi John.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- Judicature Act s.33 (now s.37)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 r.11(a)(d)(e)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 r.14(1)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 r.14(2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 r.19
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 r.6
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 1 r.10(2)
- Limitation Act s.5
- Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
Cases cited (8)
- Fakrudin Vallibhai Kapasi and Another v Kampala District Land Board and Alliance Holdings Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 570 of 2015)
- Uganda Aluminium Ltd v Restuta Twinomugisha (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2000)
- Kapeka Coffee Works Ltd v NPART (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
- Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2001)
- Donovan v Gwentoys Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 472
- Trust Ventures Ltd v Power Foam (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No. 669 of 2017)
- Attorney General v Sanyu Television (Civil Suit No. 614 of 1998)
- Kyaninga Royal Cottages Limited v Kyaninga Lodge Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 551 of 2018)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.