Wakilii

Nazziwa Reges v Juliet Sekabanja (Miscellaneous Application No. 481 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1258 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application to strike out witness statement and plaint arising from land trespass suit
Decision
Application dismissed; main suit to proceed on merits with leave granted to plaintiff to amend pleadings

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 dismissed an application to strike out a witness statement and plaint in a land trespass suit. The court held that filing an expanded witness statement after hearings commenced, though procedurally irregular, did not prejudice the applicant where cross-examination rights remained intact. The suit was not time-barred under the Limitation Act because it concerned continuing trespass, not a claim to the deceased's estate. The surviving executrix possessed full authority under the Succession Act to sue without co-executor consent. A name variation on the land title constituted a curable misnomer rather than a defect vitiating the cause of action.

Outcome

Application dismissed; main suit to proceed on merits with leave granted to plaintiff to amend pleadings

Facts

The respondent, Juliet Sekabanja, sued as surviving executrix of the estate of the late S.M. Sekabanja (probate granted 1988) and as registered proprietor of Plot 6, Block 287, Nabukalu, Wakiso District. She alleged that the applicant, Nazziwa Reges, trespassed on Plot 7 (estate land) in 2015 and again in August 2019, bringing persons onto the land, clearing forest trees, and claiming it as family kibanja without documentary proof. The respondent filed multiple witness statements for Miriam Namutebi: one in March 2023 (16 paragraphs), another in January 2025, and a third in June 2025 (40 paragraphs), after hearings had commenced. The applicant challenged the June 2025 statement as irregular, argued the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act (probate granted 1988, suit filed 2020), contended the respondent lacked authority from deceased co-executors, and asserted the plaint disclosed no cause of action due to name variation on the title (Juliet Dolores Sekabanja vs. Juliet Sekabanja).

Issues

  1. Whether the witness statement of Namutebi Miriam filed on 13th June 2025 should be struck out.
  2. Whether the Plaint is barred by limitation and therefore bad in law.
  3. Whether the Plaint should be struck off for lack of authority from the other executors.
  4. Whether the Plaint discloses no cause of action.

Orders

  • The witness statement of Miriam Namutebi filed on 13th June 2025 shall remain on record, and the applicant is at liberty to cross-examine the witness fully on its contents.
  • The plaint is not barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Limitation Act, Cap. 290.
  • The plaintiff, as sole surviving executor, possesses full legal capacity to institute this suit.
  • The plaintiff is granted leave to amend the pleadings to clarify her full legal name and confirm her identity as the same person named on the certificate of title, including submitting any supporting documentary proof if necessary.
  • The suit shall proceed on its merits, and the parties are directed to prepare for the continuation of the trial in accordance with the Court's timelines.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Witness Statements — Filing of Expanded Statement After Hearings Commenced — Whether Procedural Irregularity Curable
Where a party files an expanded witness statement after hearings have commenced without seeking leave, the procedural irregularity does not amount to an abuse of process requiring the statement to be struck out if the witness is not new to the proceedings, the opposing party's right to cross-examine remains intact, and no substantial prejudice is occasioned. Courts must administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Land & Property — Trespass — Continuing Tort — Limitation Period
Trespass to land is a continuing tort. Each act of unlawful entry or occupation renews the cause of action so long as the wrongful possession persists. Limitation runs from each act of trespass, not from a fixed accrual date. A suit alleging continuing trespass is not barred by limitation where the alleged occupation subsists and acts of trespass occurred within the statutory period.
Succession & Estates — Executors — Limitation Act Section 20 — Distinction Between Claims To and Claims By the Estate
Section 20 of the Limitation Act, which bars actions claiming any share or interest in a deceased's estate after 12 years from accrual, does not apply to suits brought by the estate or its executors to protect estate property against external trespassers. The probate date is immaterial to a cause of action founded on trespass to land. An executor asserting a claim to protect registered estate property from ongoing encroachment is not seeking a belated share in the estate.
Succession & Estates — Executors — Authority of Surviving Executor — Succession Act Section 269
Upon the death of one or more of several executors, all powers of the office vest in the survivors or survivor under Section 269 of the Succession Act. The surviving executor assumes full authority to act in the administration of the estate, including the initiation of legal proceedings to protect the estate from unlawful interference, without requiring authorization from deceased co-executors.
Civil Procedure — Cause of Action — Misnomer — Name Variation on Land Title
A variation in a party's name as it appears on a land title (omission of a middle name) constitutes a misnomer rather than a substitution of parties where the certificate of title was admitted without objection, no contest has been raised regarding ownership, and no fraud or misrepresentation has been alleged. Such a misnomer is curable by amendment under the court's inherent powers where the identity of the party can be clearly ascertained and no prejudice results. The variation does not vitiate the cause of action or render the plaint defective under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (13)

  • Adam Namadowa and 6 Others v Hakim Kawaidhanako and 3 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 100 of 2012)
  • Tororo Cement Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Patel v Patel [1992-1993] HCB 137
  • Richard Okwir v George William Mpungu (High Court Civil Suit No. 0132 of 2024)
  • Seruwagi Mohamed v Yuasa Investment Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 334 of 2013)
  • Justine E.M.N. Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Proscovia Kajumba v Fred Mushabe and 23 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 038 of 2021)
  • Hamida Mutyaba v Semogerere and Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 798 of 2017)
  • Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty Bakireke (Supreme Court Election Petition Appeal No. 04 of 2009)
  • Joseph Buye and 3 Others v Dr. Samuel Ssenyange (Miscellaneous Cause No. 15 of 2015)
  • Kasaliko Herman v Energo Projekt Ltd and Uganda National Roads Authority (Civil Suit No. 26 of 2017)
  • Kyaninga Royal Cottages Ltd v Kyaninga Lodge Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 551 of 2018)
  • Attorney General v Sanyu Television (1998)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nazziwa Reges v Juliet Sekabanja (Miscellaneous Application No. 481 of 2025) [2025] UGHC 1258 (4 November 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.