Mukooli v Nabbale & 3 Ors (Civil Suit No. 282 of 2013)
Observed later treatment
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 a claim for recovery of land based on an unregistered interest acquired under a contract for sale of land is governed by the 12-year limitation period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, not the 6-year contract limitation under Section 3(1)(a). Time runs from when the plaintiff's interest was wrongfully sold to another party or from when administrators failed to deliver the certificate of title. A plea of fraud under Section 25 further suspends the limitation period until the plaintiff becomes aware of the fraud. Preliminary objection dismissed.
Outcome
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to full hearing
Facts
The plaintiff entered into a contract with the late Christine Nabaggala on 2 July 2000 for the purchase of part of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 244 Plot 541 at Kabalagala. The plaintiff paid UGX 7,200,000 with the balance of UGX 7,300,000 to be paid upon receipt of a certificate of title. Christine Nabaggala died before completing the transaction. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants were appointed administrators of her estate. On 29 February 2012, the plaintiff paid the balance to the administrators, who handed over signed transfer and mutation forms and promised to deliver the original certificate of title by 30 May 2012. Instead, the administrators sold the entire land including the plaintiff's portion to the 1st defendant, who procured registration on 3 August 2012. The plaintiff filed suit on 18 June 2013 seeking recovery of his portion and alleging fraud.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation under Section 3(1)(a) of the Limitation Act as an action founded on contract.
- Whether the plaintiff's claim is properly characterised as an action for recovery of land under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- Whether the plea of fraud exempts the plaintiff's claim from limitation under Section 25 of the Limitation Act.
- When the limitation period begins to run in respect of the plaintiff's claim.
Orders
- Preliminary objection dismissed with costs.
- Costs to be taxed at the determination of the suit.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (6)
Cases cited (5)
- Lwanga v Uganda Electricity Board (High Court Civil Suit No. 124 of 2003)
- Hammaann Ltd & Anor v Ssali & Anor (High Court Misc. Application No. 449 of 2013)
- Polyfibre (U) Ltd v Matovu Paul & 3 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 412)
- Henry N.K. Wabui & Anor v Rogers Hanns Kiyonga Ddungu & 2 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 102 of 2009)
- Madvani International S.A v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2004)
Cases citing this judgment (5)
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.
- James Ham Ssali v Land and Property Management Services (E.A) Ltd (Civil Suit 189 of 2018)
- VAS Garage Limited v MTN Uganda Limited (Civil Suit 689 of 2022)
- Syanywana Kasereka and others v Registrar of Titles and Another (HCT-01-LD-CS 21)
- Syanywana Kasereka and 2 Others v Registrar of Titles and Another (HCT-01-LD-CS 21 of 2013)
- Odur v Muto (Civil Appeal No. 0079 of 2016)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.