Wakilii

Pan African Insurance Company Limited v Uganda Airlines Corporation & 2 Others (Civil Suit 63 of 1985)

High Court · [1985] UGHC 2 · 1985 Preliminary Applications Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil suit seeking declaration of ownership following compulsory acquisition
Decision
Both preliminary applications dismissed; matter remitted for hearing on 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 dismissed both preliminary points of law and ordered the suit to proceed to full hearing. A plaintiff is entitled to judgment only in stipulated situations including default, consent, admission, or after trial. The preliminary point raised by the plaintiff raised triable issues since defendants had raised defences. The tort of conversion applies only to chattels, not land. This was an action for recovery of land to which a twelve-year limitation period applied under the Limitation Act, not the twelve-month period for tort claims. The plaintiff's action was therefore not statute-barred.

Outcome

Both preliminary applications dismissed; matter remitted for hearing on merits

Facts

The plaintiff purchased premises in 1970. In 1978 the Minister of Lands and Water Resources issued Statutory Instrument No.69 of 1978 purporting to compulsorily acquire the buildings under the Land Acquisition Act. In 1983, five years after acquisition and after the dispute arose, the first and second defendants were entered on the plaintiff's certificate of title. No compensation was given to the plaintiff who remained in occupation and management of the buildings, collecting rent. Government later vested the property in the second defendant. An award of Shs.11.5 million was offered through the plaintiff's advocates but was not accepted and no appeal was lodged to the High Court. The plaintiff brought suit seeking a declaration that it remained the rightful owner of the property.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a preliminary point of law without trial.
  2. Whether the plaintiff's claim raised triable issues requiring full hearing.
  3. Whether the tort of conversion applied to actions concerning land.
  4. Whether the plaintiff's action against the Attorney General was time-barred under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act No.20 of 1969.

Orders

  • Both preliminary points dismissed with costs in the cause.
  • Suit to be heard on merits.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Entitlement to Judgment — Preliminary Points of Law
A plaintiff is entitled to judgment only in well stipulated situations, namely in default of entering appearance or defence, by consent of both parties, on admission of the plaintiff's claim by the defendant, after trial of issues of law, and after hearing the suit.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Points of Law — Proper Procedure
Where a plaintiff seeks judgment on a preliminary point of law, the plaintiff must make the proper application to have the point of law set down for hearing and there must be a trial of that point. The court may only dismiss the suit or make such other order, but not enter judgment in favour of the plaintiff without proper procedure.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Points of Law — Triable Issues
A preliminary point of law will be dismissed where it raises triable issues and where defendants have raised defences to the plaintiff's claim that require full hearing.
Tort Law — Conversion — Applicability to Land
The tort of conversion is confined to chattels or goods, being an act of deliberate dealing with a chattel in a manner inconsistent with another's right to possession. Land is not a chattel or goods which can be converted and therefore the tort of conversion does not apply to actions concerning land.
Civil Procedure — Limitation Periods — Actions for Recovery of Land
Where a plaintiff seeks a declaration that it is still the legal owner of property, the action is one for recovery of land. The limitation period applicable to such actions is twelve years in accordance with the Limitation Act, not the twelve-month period applicable to tort claims under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act No.20 of 1969.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Land Acquisition Act Cap.208
  • Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act No.20 of 1969
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.10(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.16
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 r.17
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.27
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 rr.4 and 6
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.11 rr.1, 4 and 5
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.13 rr.2, 6 and 7
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.22 r.6
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.33 r.3
  • Expropriated Properties Act No.9 of 1982
  • Limitation Act Cap.70
  • Statutory Instrument No.69 of 1978

Cases cited (3)

  • Airport Services v. Attorney General A9597 B.C.B. 53
  • Lutaye v Gandesha & Anor (High Court Civil Suit No. 860 of 1982)
  • Nakabiri v Masaka District Growers Union (High Court Civil Suit No. 853 of 1983)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pan African Insurance Company Limited v Uganda Airlines Corporation & 2 Others (Civil Suit 63 of 1985) [1985] UGHC 2 (6 June 1985)
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.