Nabisere v Mutebi & Anor (Civil Suit No. 565 of 2012)

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.

Holding

Held that the suit for recovery of land was time barred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which requires actions for recovery of land to be brought within twelve years from the date the right of action accrued. The plaintiff's predecessor became aware of the alleged fraudulent transfer in 1986 but did not challenge it in a competent court. Orders of the Resistance Council Courts, which lacked jurisdiction over titled land, were void and could not constitute effective challenge or support adverse possession. An administrator is deemed to claim as if there were no interval between death and grant of letters, so the limitation period ran from 1986. The suit filed in 2012 was therefore barred, and the court could not grant relief regardless of substantive merits. Suit dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed as time barred; counterclaim to be heard separately

Facts

The plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of the late Samalie Bugutanya Nakibuuka Namukasa, sued the defendants for recovery of land in Kyadondo Block 174 Plot 86, alleging the 1st defendant fraudulently transferred the land into his name in 1986. The deceased left for Europe in 1986 and returned in 1992 to find the 1st defendant registered as proprietor. She obtained orders from Resistance Council Courts in 1992 and forcefully evicted the 1st defendant with police assistance. The 1st defendant remained registered proprietor throughout and transferred the land to the 2nd defendant in 2011. The deceased died in 1997. The plaintiff obtained letters of administration in 2011 and filed suit in 2012. The defendants raised a preliminary objection that the suit was time barred.

Issues

1. Whether the suit is time barred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. Whether the court can hear the merits of the case in the event that a suit is barred by statute.
3. What are the remedies available to the parties.

Orders

• The suit is time barred and is dismissed with costs.
• The court will proceed to hear and determine the counterclaim.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Limitation Act Cap.80 s.5
• Limitation Act s.15
• Civil Procedure Act Cap.71 s.35(1)
• Registration of Titles Act s.59
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 r.6

Cases cited (10)

• Rosemary Nabukenya v Gladys Mukula & 4 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 046 of 2011)
• Assanand & Sons (U) Ltd v East African Records Ltd [1959] EA 360
• Kabwengure v Kanjabi [1977] HCB 89
• Nambalu Kintu v Kamira [1975] HCB 221
• Karnaraka Board of Wakf v Government of India & Others [(2004)] 10 SCC 779
• Vincent Rule Opio v Attorney General [1990-1991] KALR 68
• Banco Arabe Espanol v Attorney General & Bank of Uganda (High Court Civil Suit No. 527 of 1997)
• Onesiforo Bamuwayira & 2 Others v Attorney General (1973) HCB 87
• Mohammad B. Kasasa v Jaspher Buyonga Sirasi Bwogi (Court of Appeal No. 42 of 2008)
• Hilton v Satton Steam Laundry [1946] 1 KB 61

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.

• Kalyesubula & 4 Others v Commissioner Land Registration & 3 Others (Civil Suit 2245 of 2015)

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