Nabuwati & 2 Ors v Uganda National Roads Authority & Anor (Civil Suit No. 136 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.
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 the plaint did not disclose a cause of action against the 1st defendant (Uganda National Roads Authority) because liabilities relating to land acquisition for the northern bypass remained vested in the Government of Uganda and were not transferred to UNRA under the Uganda National Roads Authority (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Regulations 2012. The suit was dismissed against the 1st defendant and ordered to proceed only against the Attorney General representing the Government of Uganda. The plaintiffs were found to have sued the wrong party under mistaken belief but this did not constitute abuse of court process.
Outcome
1st defendant discharged from proceedings; suit to proceed only against the 2nd defendant (Attorney General)
Facts
The plaintiffs, as administrators of the estate of the late Hassan Ssali, sued the Uganda National Roads Authority (UNRA) and the Attorney General seeking compensation and other relief in respect of land comprised in Kyadondo Block 234 Plot 250 at Kirinya. The late Hassan Ssali was the registered proprietor of the suit land since 1974. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants appropriated the suit land without compensation and constructed a flyover and roundabout thereon as part of the northern bypass road project. Before UNRA's establishment in 2006, the land acquisition process was conducted by the Government of Uganda through the Road Agency Formation Unit (RAFU) under the Ministry of Works and Transport. UNRA raised a preliminary objection contending that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action against it and that the suit was premature and an abuse of court process.
Issues
- Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the 1st defendant (Uganda National Roads Authority).
- Whether the 1st defendant is liable for the alleged violation of the plaintiffs' right to ownership and enjoyment of the suit land.
- Whether the suit constitutes an abuse of court process.
Orders
- The preliminary objection succeeds in part.
- The suit against the 1st defendant (Uganda National Roads Authority) is dismissed.
- The 1st defendant is discharged from the proceedings.
- The suit shall henceforth proceed against the Attorney General as the representative of the Government of Uganda only.
- The plaintiffs shall pay one half of the costs attributable to the partial success of the preliminary objections.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (12)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 Order 7 rule 11(d)
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 Order 6 rules 28
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 Order 6 rules 29
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 Order 6 rules 30
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 Order 15 rule 2
- Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
- Uganda National Roads Authority Act No. 15 of 2006 s.6
- Uganda National Roads Authority Act No. 15 of 2006 s.39
- Civil Procedure and Limitation (Misc Provisions) Act Cap 72 (1st schedule)
- Uganda National Roads Authority (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Regulations 2012 Regulation 2(1)
- Uganda National Roads Authority (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Regulations 2012 Regulation 2(2)
- Uganda National Roads Authority (Transfer of Assets and Liabilities) Regulations 2012 Regulation 2(3)
Cases cited (3)
- Auto Garage and others v Motokov (No.3) (1971) EA 514
- Cotter v Attorney General of Kenya [1938] EACA 18
- Attorney General v Major General David Tinyenfuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
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
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.