Wakilii

Okello v Obel (Civil Suit No. 157 of 2017)

High Court · [2022] UGCOMMC 54 · 2022 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection that the suit is time barred
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

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 court held that a suit for breach of contract and damages arising from the unlawful sale of land was not time barred under the Limitation Act. The cause of action arose on the date of the alleged unlawful sale (9 June 2015), and the suit filed on 1 March 2017 was well within the six-year limitation period prescribed by section 3(1) of the Limitation Act for actions founded on contract.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

Facts

The plaintiff advanced a loan of UGX 16,850,000 to the defendant on 18 March 2001 to enable the defendant to purchase land. The parties agreed that upon the defendant acquiring the certificate of title, the land would be divided into two plots, one for each party. The defendant obtained the certificate of title on 15 May 2002 but did not divide the land. On 9 June 2015, the defendant sold the entire property to a third party for UGX 360,000,000. The plaintiff filed suit on 1 March 2017 for breach of contract and damages arising from the sale. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit was time barred under the Limitation Act.

Issues

  1. Whether Civil Suit No. 157 of 2017 is time barred and should therefore be struck out

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed.
  • Suit to be set down for hearing.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation of Actions — Determination of When Cause of Action Arose
Determination of when a cause of action arose is a question of fact to be deduced by the court after reading the plaint in its entirety.
Limitation of Actions — Breach of Contract — Commencement of Limitation Period
For a claim founded on breach of contract, the six-year limitation period under section 3(1) of the Limitation Act commences from the date on which the cause of action arose, which is the date of the breach giving rise to the dispute.
Preliminary Objections — Time Bar — Burden of Proof
Where a preliminary objection is raised that a suit is time barred, the court must determine whether the action was brought within the prescribed period under the Limitation Act, and if not, whether the case falls within one of the exceptions extending the period of limitation.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Iga v Makerere University [1972] 1 EA 65

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Okello v Obel (Civil Suit No. 157 of 2017) [2022] UGCommC 54 (29 July 2022)
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.