Wakilii

Pte. Musimenta and Another v Attorney General (HCT-01-LD-CS-0026-2019)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 835 · 2025 Preliminary Objections Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections raised by the Defendant in a representative civil suit for compensation for land and damages arising from eviction
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to full 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 High Court overruled both preliminary objections. The suit was not time-barred because the Defendant's written acknowledgments of liability through various government communications from 2000 to 2014 continuously restarted the limitation period under Limitation Act sections 22 and 23. The res judicata objection could not be determined as a pure point of law without examining the pleadings from the earlier suit (HCCS No. 546 of 2003), making it unsuitable for preliminary determination. The matter was ordered to proceed to hearing on the merits.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to full hearing on the merits

Facts

231 UPDF soldiers and their families were evicted in 1992 from Mpokya Sub-County, Kabarole District, where they had been settled by the Central Government and the Toro and Ankole Kingdoms. The eviction was carried out by the National Resistance Army and Uganda Police Force, with destruction of houses and crops. Non-soldier evictees were resettled in Bugangaizi on twelve acres each, but the Plaintiffs, being UPDF soldiers, were excluded. Between 2000 and 2014, various government bodies acknowledged the Plaintiffs' plight and recommended compensation or alternative land. A consent judgment in HCCS No. 546 of 2003 awarded each Plaintiff UGX 6,000,000 in general damages for unlawful eviction, totalling UGX 1,380,000,000. The Plaintiffs continued to seek compensation for their land, filing the present suit in 2019 claiming UGX 16,632,000,000 for land value (12 acres per Plaintiff) plus special, general, punitive, aggravated, and exemplary damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation.
  2. Whether the matter is res judicata.

Orders

  • The Defendant's preliminary objections are hereby overruled.
  • The suit shall proceed for hearing on the merits.
  • Costs of the preliminary objections shall be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Preliminary Objections — Pure Points of Law — Requirements
A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded are correct, and it cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if extrinsic evidence is required.
Limitation of Actions — Acknowledgment of Debt or Title — Effect on Limitation Period
Where a right of action to recover land or debt has accrued and the person in possession or liable acknowledges the title or claim in writing, the limitation period is deemed to have accrued anew from the date of that acknowledgment under Limitation Act sections 22 and 23.
Limitation of Actions — Acknowledgment by Government — Agent Authority
Written communications from official government bodies acknowledging liability constitute valid acknowledgments under the Limitation Act, as such bodies act as agents of the Attorney General, satisfying the requirement that acknowledgments may be made by an agent.
Res Judicata — Preliminary Determination — Requirement for Extrinsic Evidence
A plea of res judicata cannot be determined as a pure point of law at the preliminary stage where the court would need to examine pleadings from the former suit not attached to the current pleadings, as this requires extrinsic evidence beyond the four corners of the current pleadings and their annexures.
Limitation of Actions — Continuous Trespass — Inapplicability to Past Eviction
The doctrine of continuous trespass does not apply to a claim for compensation arising from a past eviction where the plaintiffs' possession ceased at the time of eviction; the cause of action is for the consequences of a past act, not an ongoing unlawful interference with land.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (19)

  • Odyek Alex & Ocen Constatino v Gena Yokonani & 4 Others (Civil Appeal No. 009 of 2017)
  • Peter Mangeni T/A Makerere Institute of Commerce v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1995)
  • Nyeko Smith and 2 Others v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2016)
  • Gastapo Company Limited v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 030 of 2011)
  • Dr. Arinaitwe Raphael & 37 Others v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 201 of 2012)
  • Hilton vs. Sultan Laundry (1964) 161, 81
  • Ponsiano Semakula vs. Susane Mugala & Others (1993) KALR 213
  • Maniraguha Gashumba v Sam Nkundiye (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2005)
  • Lt Ben Kachope & 229 Others v Attorney General and Uganda Wildlife Authority (High Court Civil Suit No. 546 of 2003)
  • Karia and Another vs. Attorney General and others [2005] 1 EA 83
  • Boutique Shazim Limited v Norattam Bhatia and Another (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2007)
  • Justine E.M.N Lutaya v Stirling Civil Engineering Company Limited (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Lubowa & 4 Ors vs. Makerere University 2013 UGSC 8
  • National Insurance Corporation vs. Span International Ltd NCLR [1997-2001] 100
  • Olwedo v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 381 of 2005)
  • Soroti Municipal Council v Akello Juliet & Another (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 2020)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs. West End Distributors [1969] EA 696
  • Lweza Clays & Another v Tropical Bank & Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2018)
  • Iga vs. Makerere University [1972] EA 65

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pte. Musimenta and Another v Attorney General (HCT-01-LD-CS-0026-2019) [2025] UGHC 835 (8 September 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.