Wakilii

Rwamyeri v The Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Portal (HCT-01-LD-CS-0046-2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHC 1426 · 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 land recovery suit following a retrial order from Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2016
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to full trial

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 all three preliminary objections raised by the Defendant. The suit was not time-barred because the Plaintiff pleaded continuous possession since 1982 and alleged fresh acts of trespass from 2012 onwards, which constitute continuing torts resetting the limitation period. The Plaint disclosed a cause of action as it adequately described the suit land and pleaded the Plaintiff's customary ownership right, its violation through trespass, and the Defendant's liability. The suit did not contravene the retrial order because the High Court, being a court of unlimited jurisdiction, was competent to hear the matter where the Chief Magistrate's Court lacked clear pecuniary jurisdiction over the multi-faceted land claim valued above UGX 100,000,000.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to full trial

Facts

The Plaintiff sued for recovery of approximately 83 acres of customary land at Bukora, Kyenjojo District, claiming inheritance from his father in 1982. The Defendant, a Catholic Diocese, denied the claim and asserted adverse possession since the 1930s, having established a church, school, and farming activities on approximately 200 acres. The Plaintiff had previously obtained judgment in his favour in Civil Suit No. 1 of 1987, but this was never executed. In 2015, the Defendant applied to set aside the 1987 judgment; the application was dismissed but succeeded on appeal. The High Court in Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2016 nullified the 1987 judgment and ordered a retrial before the Chief Magistrate of Fort Portal, directing parties to amend pleadings to reflect realities on the ground. The Plaintiff filed the present suit in the High Court Land Division in 2024, alleging fresh trespasses by the Defendant's agents from 2012 and continuing since 2021. The Defendant raised three preliminary objections: that the suit was time-barred, disclosed no cause of action, and contravened the retrial order by being filed in the High Court rather than before the designated Chief Magistrate.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff's suit is time-barred under the Limitation Act.
  2. Whether the Plaint discloses a cause of action.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff's suit contravenes the retrial order made in Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2016.

Orders

  • The preliminary objections are overruled in their entirety.
  • Costs of the preliminary objections shall abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation — Customary Ownership — Continuous Possession — Fresh Trespass as Continuing Tort
Where a plaintiff pleads continuous possession of customary land and alleges fresh acts of trespass within the limitation period, the suit is not time-barred on the face of the pleadings. Trespass is a continuing tort giving rise to a fresh cause of action de die in diem, thereby resetting the twelve-year limitation period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The right of action for recovery of land accrues only upon dispossession or discontinuance of possession under Section 11(1) of the Limitation Act, and where the owner remains in actual possession, the limitation period does not run.
Customary Tenure — Constitutional Protection — Limitation Period
Customary tenure is recognised and protected under Article 237(3)(a) of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Land Act. Where the customary owner remains in actual possession of the land, the limitation period under the Limitation Act does not run against him. The determination of whether adverse possession has been established requires proof of open, notorious, exclusive, and hostile possession for the statutory period, which cannot be resolved on a preliminary objection without evidence.
Pleadings — Disclosure of Cause of Action — Land Description — Auto Garage Test
A plaint discloses a cause of action where it demonstrates that the plaintiff enjoys a right, that the right has been violated, and that the defendant is liable. For land suits, the subject matter must be described with reasonable certainty to enable identification, but absolute precision is not required. A description by acreage, local administrative unit, parish, sub-county, and district, amplified by annexures showing boundaries and neighbours, satisfies the test for sufficient identification. The omission of the exact date of a predecessor's death does not vitiate a claim where the fact of inheritance or inter vivos gift is pleaded.
Retrial Orders — Jurisdiction — Compliance with Appellate Directions
A retrial order by an appellate court must be understood purposively. Where the appellate court orders a retrial before a court of competent jurisdiction but the designated lower court lacks pecuniary or subject-matter jurisdiction over the multi-faceted claims pleaded, compliance with the order requires filing before a court with jurisdiction to finally resolve the dispute. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, acquiescence, or judicial directive where the law does not give it. A party cannot be compelled to litigate in a court lacking jurisdiction, and filing before a court of competent jurisdiction does not constitute disobedience of the retrial order.
Magistrates Courts Act — Unlimited Jurisdiction over Customary Tenure — Pecuniary Limits
Section 206(2) of the Magistrates Courts Act grants magistrates' courts unlimited jurisdiction in matters relating to customary tenure. However, this provision applies where the sole or predominant issue is customary tenure. Where the dispute involves large tracts of land, high value, recovery of land, eviction, damages for trespass, and complex historical litigation involving third parties, the unlimited jurisdiction over customary tenure does not override the general statutory ceiling on pecuniary jurisdiction. The court must consider the nature and value of all reliefs claimed, not merely the presence of a customary tenure element.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (14)

  • Uganda Railways Corporation v Ekwaru D.O & 5104 Others (Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2007)
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Industrial Development Cooperation of Southern Africa v Aja Investments (U) Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 2863 of 2023)
  • Moses Mukwaya & 3 Others v Wilson Sebalamu & 3 Others (Civil Suit No. 583 of 2013)
  • Dima Dominic Pono v Godfrey and Apiku Martin (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2016)
  • Kiguli Eddrin William v Takia NightGale Taqwa Mukasa Clark (Civil Suit No. 2171 of 2014)
  • Kayizzi v Sewaalinte (Civil Suit No. 438 of 2013)
  • Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International Ltd [2003] 1 EA 556
  • Kampala District Land Board v. National Housing & Construction Corp
  • Mpoza Katuluba v Lukoma (Civil Suit No. 4 of 2016)
  • Atutur Sub County & 3 Others v Ikuret John Peter (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2013)
  • Gawubiru Luzida v Kiwita Stephen (Civil Appeal No. 130 of 2008)
  • Igga & Others v The Registered Trustees of Pentecostal Assemblies of God & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2016)
  • Desai v Warsama [1967] EA 351

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rwamyeri v The Registered Trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Fort Portal (HCT-01-LD-CS-0046-2024) [2025] UGHC 1426 (24 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.