[2009] UGHC 115

[2009] UGHC 115

The suit against the Attorney General was a nullity due to lack of statutory notice as required by section 2 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap.72. Furthermore, the suit was time-barred under section 3(1) of the same Act, as the cause of action arose in 2004 and the suit was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UGHC 115
Parties
Plaintiff: Samuel M. Kizito; Defendant: Nakasongola District Local Government; Defendant: Attorney General
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No. 420 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Limitation
Outcome
suit dismissed with costs against the plaintiff; judgment and decree against 1st defendant set aside
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Limitation Periods, Service of Statutory Notice, Mesne Profits, Vacant Possession, Injunctions
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Tort Law Trespass to Land Limitation Periods Service of Statutory Notice Mesne Profits Vacant Possession +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel M. Kizito

Plaintiff

Nakasongola District Local Government

Defendant

Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Limitation

  1. 1 Whether the suit against the Attorney General is a nullity for lack of statutory notice.
  2. 2 Whether the suit is time-barred under section 3 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap.72.
  3. 3 Whether the judgment and decree against the 1st defendant were irregularly granted and should be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The suit against the Attorney General was a nullity due to lack of statutory notice as required by section 2 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap.72. Furthermore, the suit was time-barred under section 3(1) of the same Act, as the cause of action arose in 2004 and the suit was filed in 2008, exceeding the two-year limitation period for tort claims against government and local authorities. Since the suit was brought jointly against both defendants and is a nullity as to one, the entire suit cannot survive against the remaining defendant. The judgment and decree previously entered against the 1st defendant were irregular and are set aside. The suit is...

Court Disposition

suit dismissed with costs against the plaintiff; judgment and decree against 1st defendant set aside

Orders

  • Suit against both defendants is dismissed with costs against the plaintiff.
  • Judgment and decree previously entered against the 1st defendant are set aside.