Wakilii

Yosia Wagisha v Kisesi (High Court Civil Suit No.51 90)

High Court · [1993] UGHCLD 2 · 1993 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection on limitation in first instance civil suit for recovery of land
Decision
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

In a preliminary objection on limitation, the court declined to strike out the plaintiff's suit for recovery of land at the pleadings stage. The court held that where the plaintiff was on remand for murder when the adverse claim arose in 1977, and only discovered the occupation upon release in 1980, the question of disability and when the cause of action accrued required evidence at trial to determine whether the suit filed in 1990 was time barred.

Outcome

Matter to proceed to trial on the merits

Facts

The plaintiff's son sold land to the defendant on 4 September 1977. At that time, the plaintiff was on remand in custody on a murder charge. On 28 September 1980, upon his release from remand, the plaintiff returned home to find the defendant in forceful occupation of his land. The plaintiff protested and demanded vacant possession but was driven away. The plaintiff filed suit on 3 April 1990. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit was time barred under section 6 of the Limitation Act, which requires suits for recovery of land to be brought within 12 years from the date when the cause of action accrued, arguing that the 12-year period expired on 4 September 1989.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit for recovery of land is time barred under the Limitation Act.
  2. Whether the plaintiff was under a disability while on remand pending a criminal charge such that time did not run against his claim.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed.
  • The substantive suit may proceed on merit.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation — Disability — Time Running Against Plaintiff on Remand
Where a plaintiff is on remand pending a criminal charge at the time an adverse claim to his land arises, he is under a disability and time does not run against his claim until the disability is removed.
Limitation — Preliminary Objection — Evidence at Trial
On a preliminary objection based on limitation, where the pleadings do not conclusively establish that a suit is time barred and the question turns on disputed facts such as when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the adverse claim or whether he was under a disability, the court should decline to strike out the plaint and should allow evidence to be adduced at trial.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Charles Mpiima Vs. Attorney General (1990-91) 11 Kat 2.58

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Yosia Wagisha v Kisesi (High Court Civil Suit No.51_90) [1993] UGHCLD 2 (10 June 1993)
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.