Wakilii

Namatende Halima v Abdallah Mohamed and Others (Civil Suit No. 25 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 953 · 2025 Suit Dismissed — Statute Barred AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection to land recovery suit on grounds of limitation
Decision
Suit dismissed on preliminary objection for being statute barred

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

Held that a suit to recover land brought 45 years after the alleged gift and entry into possession is statute barred under Limitation Act s.5, which bars actions to recover land after 12 years from accrual of the right of action. The principle that once statute barred, always statute barred applies. No evidence of disability to sue was shown. Suit dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Suit dismissed on preliminary objection for being statute barred

Facts

The plaintiff claimed her late father gifted her half an acre of land in 1979 by word of mouth, and she took possession and developed it. In 2022, she discovered kiosks erected by persons claiming to be tenants of the 1st defendant. She filed suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court in 2023, which was dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. She then filed this High Court suit in 2024 seeking cancellation of the 1st defendant's certificate of title, declarations of fraud and trespass, and eviction orders. The 1st defendant contended his family acquired the land in 1961 through purchase, maintained possession for over 60 years, and obtained legal title. A locus visit revealed only temporary kiosks occupied by the defendant's tenants, with no evidence of the plaintiff's occupation.

Issues

  1. Whether this suit is statute barred by the law of limitation?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Plaintiff's suit dismissed as time barred.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation — Actions to Recover Land — Accrual of Right of Action
Under Limitation Act s.5, no action shall be brought to recover land after 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued, and the period of limitation begins to run from the time the cause of action accrued until the suit is filed.
Limitation — Once Statute Barred, Always Statute Barred
The principle underlying the law on limitation is that once a suit is statute barred, any subsequent developments cannot revive it, and once statute barred, always statute barred.
Limitation — Disability to Sue — Burden of Proof
A plaint which does not plead disability where the cause of action is barred by limitation is bad in law, and there must be evidence on record to show that the plaintiff was under any disability to sue.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (1)

  • FX Miramago v Attorney General [1979] HCB 24

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Namatende Halima v Abdallah Mohamed and Others (Civil Suit No. 25 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 953 (8 July 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.