[2002] UGHC 7

[2002] UGHC 7

The court held that although the applicant alleged fraud and collusion in the procurement of the previous consent judgment, the plaint did not sufficiently plead the particulars of fraud or the date of its discovery as required to invoke exemption from the limitation period. The suit was essentially for recovery of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] UGHC 7
Parties
Applicant: Tatu Nanteza; Respondent: Administrator General; Respondent: Abdul Wasswa
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 192 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Fraud in Judgment, Limitation Periods, Pleading Requirements, Land Recovery
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Res Judicata Fraud in Judgment Limitation Periods Pleading Requirements Land Recovery

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tatu Nanteza

Applicant

Administrator General

Respondent

Abdul Wasswa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objections

  1. 1 Whether the suit is barred by res judicata due to a previous consent judgment between the same parties over the same subject matter.
  2. 2 Whether the suit is barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, given the time elapsed since the alleged cause of action arose.
  3. 3 Whether the plaint sufficiently pleads fraud and the date of its discovery to invoke exemption from limitation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the applicant alleged fraud and collusion in the procurement of the previous consent judgment, the plaint did not sufficiently plead the particulars of fraud or the date of its discovery as required to invoke exemption from the limitation period. The suit was essentially for recovery of land, and the cause of action arose in 1977, with the suit filed in 2002, well beyond the twelve-year limitation period. The plaint failed to disclose grounds for exemption from limitation, and thus, in accordance with Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the plaint was rejected as being barred by law. Consequently, the application collapsed and was dismissed with...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The plaint in the head suit is rejected as barred by law under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The present application is dismissed with costs.