Wakilii

Nansubuga Miriam v Kayise Leonard and 2 Others (HCT-23-LD-CS-0040-2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1553 · 2025 Suit Struck Out — Time Barred AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for declaration of ownership, trespass, and recovery of land
Decision
Suit struck out as time barred; defendants remain in possession

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 held that an action for trespass to land seeking recovery of land is subject to the twelve-year limitation period under the Limitation Act. Where a defendant has been in continuous occupation for over twelve years without challenge, the plaintiff's title is extinguished by operation of law. The suit filed 33 years after the original dispossession was time barred and struck out.

Outcome

Suit struck out as time barred; defendants remain in possession

Facts

The late Erisa Sebowa purchased two plots of land totalling 10 acres in 1962 and 1969. He brought Experito Mukasa to caretake the land and authorised him to use half an acre for cultivation. Upon Experito Mukasa's death in 2018, his children (the defendants) continued occupying the land, allegedly exceeding the half-acre boundary. The plaintiff, administrator of Sebowa's estate, filed suit in 2021 seeking declarations of ownership and trespass. Evidence showed that Sebowa was aware of Experito Mukasa's occupation before his death in 1988, and disputes over the land existed as early as 1990 and were brought before district authorities by 2000. The defendants had been in continuous occupation with houses, crops, and a burial ground on the land.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is time barred.
  2. Whether the defendants were given or purchased half an acre or seven acres off the suit land.
  3. Whether the defendants have trespassed on six and a half acres of land.
  4. What are the remedies available to the parties?

Orders

  • Civil suit no. 0040 of 2024 is struck out for being time barred.
  • The defendants are granted costs of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Land & Property — Limitation of Actions — Trespass to Land — Recovery of Land
An action for trespass to land that seeks recovery of land falls squarely within the scope of actions to recover land and is subject to the twelve-year limitation period prescribed by section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Civil Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Commencement of Limitation Period — Dispossession
Under section 6(1) of the Limitation Act, where a person bringing an action to recover land has been dispossessed, the right of action accrues on the date of dispossession. The limitation period runs from the date the rightful owner knew or ought to have known of the dispossession, not from the date letters of administration are granted.
Land & Property — Limitation of Actions — Extinguishment of Title — Continuous Occupation
Under section 16 of the Limitation Act, at the expiration of the twelve-year limitation period, the title of the person entitled to bring an action to recover land is extinguished. Where a defendant has been in continuous occupation for over twelve years without legal challenge, the plaintiff loses the right to recover the land.
Statutory Interpretation — Limitation Act — Trespass as Continuous Tort — Inapplicability Where Recovery Sought
The principle that trespass is a continuous tort not subject to limitation does not apply where the plaintiff is not in possession and the defendant is in possession. In such cases, the plaintiff seeks to recover land and the twelve-year limitation period applies.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Obyek Alex and Another v Gena Yokanan and 4 Others (HCCA No. 09 of 2017)
  • Kiwanuka Fredrick Kakumutwe v Kibirige Edward (Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2017)
  • Donovan v Gwentoys Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 472
  • Justine E.M.N Lutaya v Sterling Civil Engineering Company (SCCA No. 11 of 2002)
  • Sebuliba v Co-operative Bank Ltd (1982) HCB 129
  • Nsubuga v Kavuma (1978) HCB 307

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nansubuga Miriam v Kayise Leonard and 2 Others (HCT-23-LD-CS-0040-2024) [2025] UGHC 1553 (10 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.