Wakilii

Ssekyondwa and Another v Matovu and 2 Others (Land Civil Suit No. 396 of 2020)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 176 · 2022 Preliminary Objections Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objections on points of law raised by defendants seeking rejection of the plaint
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to trial 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

Held that the 2nd plaintiff disclosed a cause of action against the defendants based on his constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 23(7) of the Constitution, which he claimed was violated by his arrest and detention following false information provided by the defendants. The court further held that the defendants' objections regarding the validity and enforceability of the sale and tenancy agreements raised issues of fact requiring evidence at trial and could not be disposed of at the preliminary stage.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on the merits

Facts

The 1st plaintiff claimed to be the registered proprietor of land comprised in Block 600 Plot 602 Busiro and brought suit jointly with the 2nd plaintiff seeking special damages of UGX 800,000,000 for lost income, a permanent injunction, and other relief against the defendants who were administrators of a deceased estate. On 14 May 2020, the defendants allegedly caused the arrest of both plaintiffs on allegations of criminal trespass. The plaintiffs were detained at Nsangi Police Station and later released on police bond. The defendants also allegedly broadcast negative messages about the plaintiffs on radio. The defendants raised three preliminary objections: that the 2nd plaintiff disclosed no cause of action; that the sale agreement was void for uncertainty; and that the tenancy agreement on which the damages claim was based never became effective as excavation had not commenced before the agreement was terminated.

Issues

  1. Whether the 2nd plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendants.
  2. Whether the purported agreement for sale of land is void for uncertainty.
  3. Whether the tenancy agreement relied upon to claim loss of UGX 800,000,000 became void before becoming effective.

Orders

  • The preliminary points of law raised by the defendants are hereby disallowed.
  • The costs of this objection shall abide the outcome of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Cause of Action — Test for Disclosure
A plaint discloses a cause of action if it shows that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that the right has been violated, and that the defendant is liable.
Civil Procedure — Rejection of Plaint — Assessment on Plaint and Annexures Alone
The question whether a plaint discloses a cause of action must be decided on perusal of the plaint alone together with its annexures, without resort to extraneous evidence.
Constitutional Law — Personal Liberty — Cause of Action Based on Constitutional Right
A plaintiff who alleges that his constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 23(7) of the Constitution was violated by his arrest and detention following false information provided by the defendants discloses a cause of action against those defendants.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Issues of Fact vs Points of Law
Preliminary objections which raise issues of fact requiring evidence, such as the validity and enforceability of contracts, cannot be disposed of at the preliminary stage and must await trial.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (14)

  • Auto Garage and Others v Motokov (No. 3) (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1971)
  • Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v Selfridge and Company Limited [1915] AC 847
  • Game Concepts v Mweru Rogers (High Court Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2012)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  • Animal Feeds v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 788 of 1990)
  • Mugwanya Patrick v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 154 of 2009)
  • Dr Denis Lwamafa v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 79 of 1983)
  • Ouma v Nairobi City Council [1976] KLR 298
  • F Zaabwe v Orient Bank Ltd and Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • J Okello Okello v UNEB (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1987)
  • Kampala Bottlers Ltd v Damanico (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 22 of 1992)
  • Re Christine Namatovu Tebajjukira [1992-1993] HCB 85
  • Yuda Lutta Musoke v Greenland Bank (In Liquidation) (High Court Civil Suit No. 506 of 2001)
  • Nansubuga Josephine v Vision for Africa (High Court Civil Suit No. 969 of 2005)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ssekyondwa_and_Another_v_Matovu_and_2_Others_(Land_Civil_Suit_No._396_of_2020)_[2022]_UGHCLD_176_(9_September_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.