Wakilii

M&D Timber Merchant and Transporters Ltd v Hwan Sung Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 0796 of 2015)

High Court · [2015] UGHCLD 42 · 2015 Application Granted — Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out civil suit for recovery of land on grounds that it is time barred by statute
Decision
Main suit dismissed as time barred

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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 court held that a suit for recovery of land filed seventeen years after the cause of action accrued is statute barred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a twelve-year limitation period. The respondent's registration as owner in 1996 triggered the limitation period, and no exemption was pleaded. Temporary injunctions obtained by the applicant did not stop time from running against the respondent. The suit was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Main suit dismissed as time barred

Facts

In 1996, Hwan Sung Ltd was registered as owner of Plot 30 Mukabya Road for an initial five-year lease. M&D Timber Merchants had been in exclusive possession of the land since 1987. In 1996 and 1997, Hwan Sung demanded that M&D vacate, but M&D refused. M&D filed suits in 2000 and 2003 challenging Hwan Sung's title and obtained temporary injunctions restraining eviction. In 2013, M&D withdrew those consolidated suits. Hwan Sung then filed HCT-CS-409-2013 in September 2013 seeking recovery of the land, a declaration of ownership, mesne profits from 1996, and vacant possession. M&D applied to strike out the suit as time barred.

Issues

  1. Whether HCT-CS-409-2013 is time barred by statute.
  2. What remedies, if any, are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • HCT-CS-409-2013 dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation of Actions — Recovery of Land — Accrual of Cause of Action
The period of limitation for an action to recover land begins to run from the date the cause of action accrues to the plaintiff, which is the date the plaintiff becomes the registered owner and the defendant refuses to vacate, not from any later date when the plaintiff chooses to sue.
Limitation of Actions — Twelve-Year Period for Recovery of 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, and a suit filed seventeen years after accrual is statute barred.
Limitation of Actions — Effect of Temporary Injunction on Running of Time
A temporary injunction restraining a defendant from evicting a plaintiff does not stop time from running against the plaintiff for purposes of limitation, nor does it bestow any possessory right on the defendant that the defendant did not already enjoy.
Limitation of Actions — Adverse Possession and Section 11 of the Limitation Act
Section 11 of the Limitation Act, which addresses adverse possession, applies only where the party suing is the one in adverse possession in whose favour the period of limitation can run; it does not apply to a registered owner who has never been in physical possession of the land.
Limitation of Actions — Pleading Exemption from Limitation
Where a suit is instituted after the expiration of the limitation period, the plaint must show the grounds upon which exemption from the law of limitation is claimed; failure to plead any exemption renders the plaint liable to rejection.
Limitation of Actions — Strict Application Regardless of Merits
Statutes of limitation are strict and inflexible enactments whose overriding purpose is to stifle litigation after a fixed length of time, irrespective of the merits of a particular case; once the limitation period expires, the defendant is entitled to insist on his strict rights.
Affidavit Evidence — Duty to Rebut Facts Sworn in Affidavit
Where certain facts are sworn to in an affidavit in support of an application, the burden is on the opposing party to deny or rebut those facts; if the opposing party merely states its own version of facts without specifically rebutting the depositions, the presumption is that the facts sworn to are accepted.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (14)

  • Re Mustapha Ramathan (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1996)
  • Muhammad B. Kasasa v Jasper Buyonga & Silas Bwogi (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2006)
  • Kikonyogo Jackson v Joseph Lwanga (High Court Civil Suit No. 239 of 2012)
  • Sam Massa v Rose Achen [1978] HCB 29
  • F.X Miramago v Attorney General [1979] HCB 24
  • Uganda Railways Corporation v Ekwaru D.O & 5104 Others (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2007)
  • Caltex Oil (U) Ltd v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 350 of 2005)
  • Okweng Washington v AG & Mike Okello (High Court Civil Suit No. 16 of 2004)
  • Onesifolo Bawayira & 2 Others v Attorney General (1973) HCB 87
  • Pearl Motors Limited v Uganda Commercial Bank (1998) III KARL 1
  • James Semusambwa v Rebecca Mulira (High Court Civil Suit No. 417 of 1992)
  • Justine E.M Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Co Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Vincent Rule Opio v Attorney General [1990-1991] KALR 68
  • Onesiforo Bamuwayira & 2 Others v Attorney General (1973) HCB 87

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

M&D Timber Merchant and Transporters Ltd v Hwan Sung Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 0796 of 2015) [2015] UGHCLD 42 (15 December 2015)
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.