Wakilii

Lutaaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Co. Limited (Civil Suit No. 494 of 1995)

High Court · [2018] UGHCLD 45 · 2018 Preliminary Objections Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objections raised by defendant at damages assessment stage following Supreme Court remittal for assessment of remedies after liability determined
Decision
Matter to proceed to assessment of damages and appropriate remedy as directed by Supreme Court

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 overruled preliminary objections challenging corporate existence of the defendant and time-bar. Where a defendant entered appearance through counsel, filed a defence, and admitted its corporate status in 1995, it was estopped from contending it did not exist at that time. Trespass to land is a continuing tort not subject to limitation periods. The Supreme Court's final order remitting only damages for assessment rendered preliminary objections on liability moot.

Outcome

Matter to proceed to assessment of damages and appropriate remedy as directed by Supreme Court

Facts

The late Justin E. M. N. Lutaaya instituted suit in 1995 against Sterling Civil Engineering Co. Limited for trespass to land comprised in Kyaggwe Block 191 Plot 34, alleging the defendant excavated stone, gravel and murram without consent from 1988 to 1995. The Supreme Court in 2003 found the defendant had trespassed and remitted the file to the High Court to determine appropriate remedies. When the matter came for damages assessment in April 2018, the defendant raised two preliminary objections: first, that the plaintiff had sued a non-existent party because the defendant was registered as a foreign company on 26 September 2002 after the 1995 suit was filed; and second, that the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act because the trespass began in 1988 and the six-year limitation period expired before the 1995 filing.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff sued a non-existent party given that the defendant company was registered as a foreign company on 26 September 2002 but the suit was filed in 1995.
  2. Whether the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act s.3(1)(a) given that the cause of action arose in 1988 and the suit was filed in 1995.
  3. Whether preliminary objections could be raised at the damages assessment stage after the Supreme Court had remitted the matter for determination of appropriate remedies.

Orders

  • Preliminary objections overruled.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Timing — Delay in Raising Objection
A preliminary objection should be raised at the earliest time possible and not when the file has been called several times and scheduling conference has been completed. Delay to raise a preliminary objection at the earliest opportunity raises a presumption that the same is deemed unnecessary.
Civil Procedure — Parties — Corporate Existence — Estoppel by Representation
Where a defendant company enters appearance through counsel, files a defence, admits in its pleadings that it is a limited liability company incorporated in Uganda, and submits to the jurisdiction of the court, that defendant is estopped from later contending at the assessment stage that it did not exist as a legal entity at the time the suit was instituted.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Finality of Supreme Court Orders
Where the Supreme Court has conclusively determined preliminary matters relating to parties and liability and remitted a case to the High Court only for assessment of appropriate remedies, the High Court cannot re-open issues finally determined by the Supreme Court. Such objections are rendered moot and left only for academic purposes.
Tort Law — Trespass to Land — Continuing Tort — Limitation
Trespass to land is a continuing tort which cannot be affected by time limitation under the Limitation Act s.3(1)(a). Each continuation of the trespass brings a new cause of action such that the suit is not caught by the six-year limitation period for actions founded on tort.
Civil Procedure — Substantive Justice — Technicalities
Under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, courts should administer justice without undue regard to technicalities. Article 126(2)(b) emphasises that justice shall not be delayed. Preliminary objections raised at a late stage after Supreme Court remittal may be dismissed in the interest of substantive justice.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (6)

  • Abdulrahman Elamin v Dhabi (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2013)
  • Paul Nyamarere v UEB (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2012)
  • Chemonges Khamis v Kapchorwa Referral Hospital (Civil Suit No. 27 of 2012)
  • Ruth Asiimwe Kanyaruju v Grace Namara (Civil Suit No. 198 of 2010)
  • Oala Lalobo v Okema Jakeo Akech (Civil Suit No. 20 of 2004)
  • Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002 (Supreme Court Judgment)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lutaaya_v_Sterling_Civil_Engineering_Co._Limited_(Civil_Suit_No._494_of_1995)_[2018]_UGHCLD_45_(23_May_2018)
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.