[1992] UGHC 75
The court found that the objections raised by the defendant did not warrant striking out the plaint at the preliminary stage. The question of whether the plaintiff is the owner of the land is a matter for trial and cannot be determined without evidence. The court held that pleadings need only state material facts...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1992] UGHC 75
- Parties
- Plaintiff: George Bisamunyu; Defendant: Bushenyi District Administration
- Court
- High Court of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 338 of 1987
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary_objections_dismissed
- Judges
- Egonda-Ntende, J
- Legal Topics
- Cause of Action, Conversion, Assault and Battery, Vicarious Liability, Limitation of Actions
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
George Bisamunyu
Plaintiff
Bushenyi District Administration
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action given the registered proprietor is not the plaintiff.
- 2 Whether the tort of conversion applies to land.
- 3 Whether the claims for assault and battery are time barred.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the objections raised by the defendant did not warrant striking out the plaint at the preliminary stage. The question of whether the plaintiff is the owner of the land is a matter for trial and cannot be determined without evidence. The court held that pleadings need only state material facts and not the law. The plaint sufficiently alleges facts to support the causes of action, and the issues raised by the defendant are matters for trial, not for disposal on preliminary objection. Accordingly, all preliminary objections were dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
preliminary_objections_dismissed
Orders
- All preliminary objections raised by the defendant are dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
#### THE REPUBLIC OR UGANDA
## IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA
'AT KAMPALA
# CIVIL SUIT NO.558 OF 1987
PLAINTIFF VERSUS GEORGE BISAMUNYU
BUSHENYI DIST. ADM. DEFENDANTS
## BEFORE: THE HON. AG. JUSTICE F. M. S. EGONDA-NTENDE
# RULING
defendant MR. MWENE KAHIMA raised a Preliminary objection that the land the subject matter of the suit did not belong to the Plaintiff as the registered proprietor mentioned in the Certificate of title is Nathan Bisamunyu claim should be dismissed. and not George Bisamunyu the Plairrtrrff. He therefore argued that the Plaintiff has no cause of action and the When this case came up for hearing Counsel for the
Secondly Counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff has based bis claim for land in the tort of conversion yet this court held in the case of Pan African Insurance Co. Ltd. -V- Uganda Airlines Cooperation Others ,1985 H. CWB. 55 that conversion! is confined to Chattels or goods but, .cannot apply to Land. & 2
Thirdly counsel for the defendant referred t Paragraph 7 of the plaint which he sgid talks of tort of Assault and Battery but throughout the body of the plaint no mention is made of who assaulted and battered the .plaintiff. The claim for assault and Battery, Counsel submitted, should be rejected.
be rejected. Counsel.fir the . Defendant submitted that in any case the claims for conversion assault and Battery are time barred under the Civil Procedure of Limitation (Misc. Provisions) '1069 section 2 thereof and should
Para 4 of the amended Lastly Counsel for the Defendant submitted that 'plaint state that the acts complained of by the plaintiff were committed by the defendants servants but it does not allege that this was done in the course of their employment. He cited the decision of this court in the case of Samuel Kizito Mubiro & Another -V- G. W. Byensiba & Another 1985 H. C. B, 106 which held that a plaint that omits to mention that a person was acting in the course of his employment should be struck out.
In reply Counsel for the plaintiff Miss Rebecca Kadaaga accused Counsel for the defendant of making wild allegations as he did not know the full names of the plaintiff and that the identity of the plaintiff was a matter'that can '; only be decided after evidence has been called.' " ■, -f ...
On the question of Conversion Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that there are other properties apart from the Land which the defendant took over. . The claim for conversion was therefore proper.
and each time he has been forced out. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the claim for assault and battery were .not time barred as the plaintiff has been, trying to re-enter his Land
acts in Paragraph- ?--and 8 of the plaint. As regards the claim that the plaint failed to state that the. defendants servants were acting in the course of their employment, Counsel for the plaintiff \* submitted that the plaint clearly stated that the actions were committed by the defendants servants and that the defendant- is vicariously liable for those
there are so many legs and arms to this suit that it cannot be dispossed of by the plaint does not disclose been tendered in court. It is therefore rejected. Counsel for the plaintiff concluded by saying that " plaintiff, is not the owner of the Land in question, this question can only be decided after evidence has a cause of action as the I have considered very carefully the submissions of both counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant and find that, with regard to the first objection that a preliminary objection.
When preparing pleadings all that a party should state are material facts upon which his claim is founded. A party need not plead the law.
*5*
I have not been able to come across a decesion by the Supreme Court of Uganda on the. subject and it would appear that the law on that subject is far from settled.
for the defendant are dismissed with costs. In the result all the objections raised by Counsel
F. Jj *I* b.. EGONDA-NTE&DE~' Ag.. Judge 18/02/92
18/02/92
Mwene Kahima for the Defendant Byenka Ebert holding brief for Kadaga and Co. Advocates for the plaintiff.' Plaintiff absent. Nakazi Court clerk.
Ruling, delivered.
!
f.m/s. egonda-ntende
/ Ag, Judge
/ 18/02/92