Wakilii

Matia Odeba and Others v Barbara Amony Oryema and Others (Civil Suit No. 16 of 2021)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 863 · 2025 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection to dismiss suit as time-barred
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to 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

Held that where a suit is based on fraud, the limitation period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. The plaintiffs pleaded fraud and particularised it in their plaint, claiming discovery in 2017 when the defendants instituted eviction proceedings. The suit filed in 2021 was within the twelve-year limitation period. Preliminary objection dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The plaintiffs, suing on behalf of themselves and 327 others, claimed that land comprised in LRV 1980 Folio 25 Plot 1 Block 4 Jonam County Nebbi District belonged to the Lwalo clan and that they had occupied it uninterrupted until 2017. The defendants, administrators of the estate of the late Peter Oryema Gwokto, held a leasehold certificate of title issued in 1991 for 49 years. In 2017 the defendants instituted civil and criminal proceedings to evict community members. The plaintiffs filed suit in September 2021 seeking cancellation of the certificate of title on grounds of fraud. The defendants raised a preliminary objection that the suit was time-barred, having been filed approximately thirty-two years after the certificate was issued in 1991.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit was time-barred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Cap. 290.
  2. Whether the exception under Section 25 of the Limitation Act for fraud applied to postpone the limitation period.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Plaintiffs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Nature and Requirements
A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. A preliminary objection must stem from the pleadings filed by the parties and must be based on pure points of law with no facts to be ascertained.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Timing of Determination
A trial court has the discretion to dispose of a preliminary point either at or after the hearing. However, where there is a preliminary objection capable of disposing of the matter in issue, it is judicious to determine the objection before embarking on the merits of the case.
Limitation Act — Section 5 — Twelve-Year Period for Recovery of Land
Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act Cap. 290, no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued. The limitation period starts to run from the time the cause of action arose to the time the suit was filed.
Limitation Act — Section 25 — Postponement of Limitation Period in Cases of Fraud
Where an action is based upon fraud or the right of action is concealed by fraud, Section 25 of the Limitation Act postpones the limitation period. The period of limitation does not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. A plea of fraud vitiates the doctrine of laches.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Requirement to Plead Fraud with Particulars
A plaintiff claiming fraud must plead grounds and sufficient cause for the fraud claim in the plaint as required under Order 7 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The particulars of fraud must be set out in the pleadings. When the plaintiff has grounds for bringing suit after the expiration of the limitation period, he or she must show sufficient cause in the pleadings.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (10)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 697
  • Quick Enterprises Ltd v Kenya Airways Corporation (Civil Case No. 22 of 1999)
  • Avtar Singh Bhamra & Another v Oriental Commercial Bank (Civil Case No. 53 of 2004)
  • Uganda Telecom Ltd v ZTE Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017)
  • FX Mirango v Attorney General (1979) HCB 24
  • Odyek & Another v Yokonani & Others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)
  • Patrick Lyamulemye v Stephen Kwiringira and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 18 of 2019)
  • Madhivani International SA v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2010)
  • Hilton v Sulton Steam Laundry [1946] 1 KB 81
  • Kithende Kalibogha and 2 Others v Eleanora Wilsmer (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Matia Odeba and Others v Barbara Amony Oryema and Others (Civil Suit No. 16 of 2021) [2025] UGHC 863 (1 August 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.