Mugambe Abdul v The Attorney General and Others (Civil Suit No.368 of 2015)
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 a claim for compensation for land compulsorily acquired by government in 1989, holding that the suit filed in 2015 was barred by the six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act s.3(1)(a). The plaintiff failed to plead grounds for exemption from limitation in the plaint as required by Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 Rule 6, and the claim that the plaintiff was a minor at the time of acquisition did not constitute a valid disability under s.21 of the Limitation Act.
Outcome
Suit dismissed as barred by limitation
Facts
The plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of late Mpiima John, sued the defendants seeking compensation for land comprised in Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 149 at Kisugu. The land was compulsorily acquired by government in 1989 and registered in the name of the 2nd defendant (Uganda Land Commission) in 1990. The plaintiff claimed his late father was never compensated for the acquisition. The suit was filed in 2015, twenty-six years after the acquisition. The defendants contended that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, was barred by limitation, and that payment had been made to the plaintiff's late father prior to acquisition. The plaintiff claimed he was a minor at the time and could not sue.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant.
- Whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the defendant.
- What remedies are available to the parties?
Orders
- The suit is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the 1st defendant.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (4)
Cases cited (3)
- Iga v Makerere University [1972] EA 65
- Siyokwe Mirome v Kuko and Another [1985] HCB 68
- Uganda Railways Corporation v Ekwaro DO and 54 Others (CA MA No. 185 of 2007)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.