[2013] UGHCLD 84

[2013] UGHCLD 84

The court found that the suit was time barred as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, since the cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants arose in 1976 and 1984, and the suit was filed in 2006, well outside the statutory twelve-year period. The plaint did not plead any grounds for exemption from limitation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] UGHCLD 84
Parties
Applicant: Hammermann Ltd; Applicant: Dott Services Ltd; Respondent: Ham Ssaali; Respondent: George Kasedde Mukasa
Court
HC: Land Division (Uganda)
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
22 November 2013
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 449 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application allowed; plaint struck out; suit dismissed as against all defendants with costs.
Judges
Bashaija, J
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Cause of Action, Fraud in Land Transactions, Pleadings and Amendments
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Land and Property Limitation Periods Cause of Action Fraud in Land Transactions Pleadings and Amendments

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hammermann Ltd

Applicant

Dott Services Ltd

Applicant

Ham Ssaali

Respondent

George Kasedde Mukasa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaint in H. C. C. S No. 756 of 2006 is time barred.
  2. 2 Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suit was time barred as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, since the cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants arose in 1976 and 1984, and the suit was filed in 2006, well outside the statutory twelve-year period. The plaint did not plead any grounds for exemption from limitation under Order 7 r.6 CPR. For the 3rd and 4th Defendants, the court held that the particulars of fraud were either missing, contradictory, or not attributable to the transferee, and thus no cause of action was disclosed. The court rejected the argument that mistakes in pleadings could be cured by amendment, stating that such defects went to the substance of the case and were...

Court Disposition

application allowed; plaint struck out; suit dismissed as against all defendants with costs.

Orders

  • The plaint in Civil Suit No. 756 of 2006 is struck out.
  • The suit is dismissed as against all Defendants with costs.