Wakilii

Naluhuba v Simeon Ochieng Awada and 2 Others (LAND CIVIL SUIT NO. 0077 OF 2022)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1511 · 2025 Plaint Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of land — preliminary objections raised by defendants
Decision
Plaint struck out on preliminary objection — suit barred by limitation and no cause of action disclosed

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 struck out the plaintiff's land suit on preliminary objection. The court held that the suit was barred by limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as the cause of action accrued in 1985 when the plaintiff alleged the defendant encroached on his land, not in 2014 when he discovered the defendant's freehold title. The 12-year limitation period had expired. The court further held that once a suit is time-barred, the plaintiff's cause of action abates and no cause of action exists against the defendant.

Outcome

Plaint struck out on preliminary objection — suit barred by limitation and no cause of action disclosed

Facts

The plaintiff applied for and was allocated a town plot in Tororo in 1985, receiving a two-year lease. He surveyed the plot and obtained a lease extension from 1994 to 2014. The plaintiff alleged he constructed a foundation and placed building materials on the plot, but the first defendant converted them and built a house. In 2014, when the plaintiff's lease expired and he sought renewal, he instructed surveyors to open boundaries but they were chased away. The plaintiff then discovered the first defendant had obtained a freehold certificate of title over plots 14 and 16, including the suit land. The plaintiff claimed the first defendant fraudulently obtained the title and trespassed on the land. The defendants raised preliminary objections that the suit was barred by limitation and disclosed no cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation under the Limitation Act.
  2. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendants.

Orders

  • The plaint in Civil Suit No. 077 of 2022 is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules for being time barred and for non-disclosure of a cause of action.
  • The plaint is struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the defendants.

Rules and key headnotes

Preliminary Objections — Nature and Requirements
A preliminary objection consists of a pure point of law which has been pleaded or arises by clear implication from the pleadings and, if argued as a preliminary point, may dispose of the suit. It is argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.
Limitation of Actions — Recovery of Land — Accrual of Cause of Action
Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, actions for recovery of land are limited to 12 years from the date of dispossession. The period of limitation begins to run from the time the cause of action accrued until when the suit is actually filed. Once a cause of action has accrued, time begins to run against the plaintiff, and no subsequent disability or inability to sue stops it.
Limitation — Trespass to Land — Continuous Trespass
Since the tort of trespass to land deals with possessory rights to land, an action for trespass to land falls squarely within the scope of actions to recover land whose limitation period is prescribed by the Limitation Act. Where trespass is continuous, the person with the right to sue may exercise that right immediately after the trespass commences, or anytime during its continuance, or after it has ended, subject to the law of limitation.
Limitation — Determination from Pleadings — Exceptions Must Be Pleaded
In determining whether a suit is barred by limitation, the court is bound to consider the pleadings of the plaintiff alone, specifically the plaint and its annexures. Where a suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by the law of limitation, the plaint must show the grounds upon which exemption from that law is claimed. Any exceptions to limitation must be pleaded in the plaint and not in subsequent pleadings.
Cause of Action — Requirements for Disclosure
A plaint discloses a cause of action where it demonstrates that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that right was violated, and the defendant is liable. Where one of these essential ingredients is unavailable, the plaint is a nullity. To determine whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the court must look only at the plaint and its annexures, and nowhere else.
Limitation — Effect on Cause of Action
Once a suit is time-barred, the plaintiff's cause of action abates. The plaintiff loses a cause of action against a defendant since there is no right that he enjoys at law which the defendant is said to have violated. A plaint which is barred by limitation is barred by law and must be rejected.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (21)

  • Makula International Limited v His Eminence, Cardinal Wamala (1982 HCB 11)
  • Uganda Railways Corporation v Ekwaru D.O and 5104 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2019)
  • FX Miramago v Attorney General (1979 HCB 24)
  • Kapeka Coffee Works Limited v NPART (Court of Appeal No. 3 of 2000)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov (1971 EA 392)
  • Toro Cement Company Limited v Frokina International Limited (Court of Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Olango Joseph v Too-Rom Richard (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0039 of 2019)
  • Mukisa West Ends Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Limited Vs Distributors 1969
  • Imbogo v Kenya Sugar Board & Others (2007 I EA 92)
  • Victoria Kayizzi v N Juma Sewaalinte (Civil Suit No. 438 of 2013)
  • Kiwanuka Fredrick Kakumutwe v Kibirige Edward (Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2017)
  • E.M.N Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Dr. Arinaitwe Raphael & 37 Others v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 201 of 2012)
  • Hilton Vs Sultan Laudry (1964) 161,81
  • Ababiri Muhamood & 4 Others v Mukomba Ananstasia T/a Taita Wilfred (High Court Civil Suit No. 22 of 2015)
  • Fenehansi Mwanguhya v King Oyo Nyimba Kabamba Iguru (High Court Civil Suit No. 72 of 2022)
  • Attorney General Vs Olwoch 1972 EA
  • Auto Garage and Another v Motokov (1971 EA 515)
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2001)
  • Drumnmond- Jackson Vs British Medical Association (1970) W.L.R. 668
  • Kebirungi v Road Trainers Ltd & 2 Others (2008 HCB 72)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Naluhuba v Simeon Ochieng Awada and 2 Others (LAND CIVIL SUIT NO. 0077 OF 2022) [2025] UGHC 1511 (29 October 2025)
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.