[1993] UGHC 2

[1993] UGHC 2

The court held that the cause of action arose in 1983 when the alleged fraud was discovered by the deceased, and not from the date of registration of title in 1969. Under section 26 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period for actions based on fraud commences upon discovery of the fraud. The suit was filed in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1993] UGHC 2
Parties
Plaintiff: David Mukasa Sendawula; Plaintiff: Joyce Wanyana; Defendant: Christine Nakalanzi; Defendant: Edith Nantumbme
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No. 423 of 1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection overruled
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Fraud in Land Transactions, Representative Capacity, Caveats and Encumbrances
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Limitation Periods Fraud in Land Transactions Representative Capacity Caveats and Encumbrances

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Mukasa Sendawula

Plaintiff

Joyce Wanyana

Plaintiff

Christine Nakalanzi

Defendant

Edith Nantumbme

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the suit is barred by limitation under the Limitation Act.
  2. 2 Whether the period of limitation should be computed from the date of alleged fraud or from the date of registration of title.
  3. 3 Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action in fraud.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the cause of action arose in 1983 when the alleged fraud was discovered by the deceased, and not from the date of registration of title in 1969. Under section 26 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period for actions based on fraud commences upon discovery of the fraud. The suit was filed in 1991, within twelve years of the discovery in 1983, and is therefore not time-barred. The preliminary objection that the suit is barred by limitation fails. The issue of limitation is triable and should be determined after hearing evidence. The objection that the suit is frivolous, vexatious, or fraudulent was not substantiated and is rejected.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection overruled

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is overruled with costs to the plaintiffs.
  • The suit shall proceed to trial on its merits.