Wakilii

Nyombayabo v Bundibugyo District Local Government (Civil Suit No. 8 of 2020)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 108 · 2023 Plaint Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection raised by defendant on points of law in a first instance civil suit for trespass and recovery of land
Decision
Plaint struck out on preliminary objection; suit dismissed with costs to the defendant

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations fading — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the suit was time-barred under Limitation Act s.5, which prescribes a 12-year period for actions to recover land. The alleged trespass occurred in 1966 and the suit was filed in 2020—over 50 years later. The plaintiff pleaded no exceptions to limitation in the plaint. The cause of action accrued to the late Kabamba Issaya, who was in possession when the alleged dispossession occurred, not to the plaintiff who was a mere beneficiary. The plaint was struck out for being time-barred and for non-disclosure of a cause of action.

Outcome

Plaint struck out on preliminary objection; suit dismissed with costs to the defendant

Facts

The plaintiff, aged 71, claimed to be the surviving beneficiary of Kabamba Kabutosa Issaya, son of Esibaki Ngibaki, the customary owner of approximately one acre of land in Bundibugyo Town Council. The plaintiff alleged that in 1966 the defendant unlawfully entered the suit land and constructed three staff quarters for Bundibugyo Hospital and kitchens on the understanding that compensation would be paid to the late Kabamba Issaya, the plaintiff's father. No compensation was ever paid. The plaintiff sued in 2020 for recovery of the land, compensation, vacant possession, permanent injunction, and general damages. The defendant raised preliminary objections that the suit was time-barred and disclosed no cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant.
  2. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation.

Orders

  • Plaint rejected under Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 11 for being time-barred and for non-disclosure of a cause of action.
  • Civil Suit No. 8 of 2020 struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation — Actions to Recover Land — 12-Year Period
Under Limitation Act s.5, no action shall be brought by any person to recover any land after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right of action accrued. The 12-year period starts running from the time the person is dispossessed of the land in dispute.
Trespass to Land — Limitation Period — Recovery of Land
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. Trespass was pleaded as a cover to circumvent the limitation period, but where the remedies sought are recovery of land or compensation in the alternative, the claim is for recovery of land and the Limitation Act applies.
Limitation — Cause of Action — Possession at Time of Dispossession
A cause of action for trespass to land only accrues to a person who was in possession of the suit land at the time he or she was dispossessed. Where the plaintiff was not in possession when the alleged trespass occurred but is a mere beneficiary, the cause of action rested on the person who was in possession at the time of dispossession, not the beneficiary.
Limitation — Exceptions — Pleading Requirements
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 (Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 6). Any exceptions to limitation must be pleaded in the plaint and not in a reply to the written statement of defence.
Preliminary Objection — Time-Bar — Determination from Plaint Alone
In determining whether a suit is barred by limitation or discloses a cause of action, reference is made to the plaint and the annexures thereto and nothing else. The court is bound to consider the pleadings of the plaintiff alone; facts raised in the defence or reply are still in contention and subject to litigation and cannot be relied upon at the preliminary objection stage.
Cause of Action — Effect of Time-Bar
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. Where the suit is barred by limitation, there is no cause of action.
Limitation — Adverse Possession — Extinctive Prescription
The statute of limitation is not concerned with merits. Once the 12-year period expires, the plaintiff's right of action is extinguished and becomes unenforceable. Uninterrupted and uncontested possession of land for a specified period, hostile to the rights and interests of the true owner, is one of the legally recognized modes of acquisition of ownership of land under the concept of extinctive prescription (Limitation Act ss.5 and 16).

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (18)

  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Cooke Vs. Gull LR SE. P116
  • Kebirungi vs. Road Trainers Ltd & 2 others (2008) HCB 72
  • Kiwanuka Fredrick Kakumutwe v Kibirige Edward (Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2017)
  • Justine E.M.N Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • FX Miragago Vs. Attorney General [1979] HCB 24
  • Dr. Arinaitwe Raphael & 37 ors vs. Attorney General HCCS No. 201 of 2012
  • Hilton Vs. Sultan Laudry (1964) 161, 81
  • Odyek Alex & Ocen Constatino v Gena Yokonani & 4 others (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2017)
  • Iga vs. Makerere University [1972] E.A 65
  • Konskier Vs. Goodman ltd (1928)1 KB 42
  • Lutaya Vs. Uganda Posts and Telecommunication Corporation (1994) KALR 372
  • Kasoya Justine & Anor Vs. William Kaija &3 others Civil Suit No. 6 of 2015
  • Perry v. Clissold [1907] AC 73
  • Rwajuma v. Jingo Mukasa, H.C. Civil Suit No. 508 of 2012
  • Eriyasafu v. Wilberforce Kuluse (1994) III KALR 10
  • Nakagiri Nakabega and two others v. Masaka District Growers [1985] HCB 38
  • Ababiri Muhamood & 4 others Vs. Mukomba Ananstasia T/a Taita Wilfred, HCCS No. 22 of 2015

Cases citing this judgment (3)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nyombayabo v Bundibugyo District Local Government (Civil Suit No. 8 of 2020) [2023] UGHCCD 108 (20 March 2023)
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.