Wakilii

Nalongo Lwanga v Matovu Kiwanuka and Others [2026] UGHCLD 79

High Court · 2026 Preliminary Objection Upheld — Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit in the Land Division seeking declaration of ownership, cancellation of title, eviction and demolition, determined on a preliminary objection of limitation
Decision
Suit dismissed as time barred; costs to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants

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 court upheld a preliminary objection that a suit for recovery of land, cancellation of title and eviction was time barred. Under section 5 of the Limitation Act no action to recover land may be brought after 12 years from accrual of the cause of action. The cause of action accrued in 1998 when the deceased obtained a certificate of title and it became apparent that part of the land claimed had been excluded; the suit was filed only in 2021. Because the defendants and their late father had occupied the disputed strip uninterrupted for well over 12 years, the plaintiff's title was extinguished under section 16. The suit was dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed as time barred; costs to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants

Facts

The plaintiff, administratrix of the estate of the late Jeremiah Lwanga Ssali, claimed that in 1990 and 1991 her late husband purchased land from the late JJ Kamulegeya, including an adjoining strip measuring about 20ft by 182ft. She alleged that during the subdivision and titling process the strip was omitted from her husband's title (Busiro Block 306 Plot 635) and was instead included in a title created in the names of the late Muwonge William (Busiro Block 306 Plot 2481), from whom the 1st and 2nd Defendants derive interest, and that the 4th Defendant had built a wall fence on it. The defendants' evidence was that the disputed area was a kibanja held by Muwonge William's father and later by Muwonge William, who occupied it with his family from the early 1990s and purchased the reversionary interest for UGX 3,000,000 in 2009, obtaining registration in June 2010. The late Jeremiah Lwanga was registered on his own title on 30 September 1998, never contested the boundaries, and died in 2015. The plaintiff filed suit in 2021. A locus in quo visit in December 2025 confirmed the disputed strip crossed the defendants' house, shops and the 4th Defendant's wall.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit for recovery of the suit land was statute barred under the Limitation Act.
  2. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
  3. Whether the plaintiff is the lawful owner of the land measuring approximately 20ft by 182ft comprised in Busiro Block 306 Plot 2481 registered in the names of Muwonge William.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection by counsel for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants is upheld.
  • The suit is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Limitation — Recovery of Land — 12-Year Period under Limitation Act s.5
No action for the recovery of land may be brought after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the cause of action accrued, and a suit filed outside that period cannot be entertained by the court.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Accrual of Cause of Action — Date of Registration Revealing Omitted Land
Where a purchaser alleges that part of the land purchased was omitted during subdivision, the cause of action accrues when the certificate of title is issued and the omission becomes apparent, and time runs from that date.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Effect of Lapse of Time — Statute Not Concerned with Merits
Once time under the Limitation Act has begun to run, no subsequent disability or inability to sue stops it, and a defendant who acquires the benefit of the statute is entitled to rely on it irrespective of the merits of the claim.
Land & Property — Extinction of Title — Uninterrupted Adverse Possession beyond Limitation Period
Where a person remains in uninterrupted possession of land for more than the prescribed limitation period without challenge from the claimant, the claimant's title to that land is extinguished under section 16 of the Limitation Act.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Rejection of Plaint Barred by Law — Computation of Time from Pleadings and Exhibits
A plaint must disclose the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose, and in determining whether a suit is barred by limitation the court examines the pleadings and the annexures or exhibits to compute when time began to run.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Nabyonzi v Namiiro and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 882 of 2020)
  • F.X. Miramago v. Attorney General [1979] HCB 24
  • Dr. Arinaitwe Raphael and 37 Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 201 of 2012)
  • Hilton Vs Sultan Laudry (1964) 161,81
  • Odyeki and Another v Yokonani and 4 Others (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nalongo Lwanga v Matovu Kiwanuka and Others [2026] UGHCLD 79 (10 April 2026)
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.