The High Court has clarified important principles regarding the limitation period for land recovery under Uganda’s Limitation Act. In the recent decision handed down today.
The court referenced the landmark case of Nyombayabo v Bundibugyo District Local Government ([2023] UGHCCD 108), in which the Court held that:
Section 5 of the Limitation Act limits the period for commencing actions to recover land to 12 years from the date the cause of action accrued.
Section 11 stipulates that the time starts running from the point when the individual is dispossessed of the land.
Section 25 provides exceptions that may postpone this time limit in cases involving fraud, mistake, or trespass as a tort. These exceptions, however, must be specifically pleaded in the plaint, the court reaffirmed.
The court further clarified that, In examining the question as to whether a suit is barred by limitation, reference is made to the plaint and the annexures thereto. The timelines stated in the plaint and the annexures are a guide in ascertaining the date when the cause of action arose, in computing time under the Limitation Act. (See: Nyombayabo (supra). This position was also elucidated in Ababiri Muhamood & 4 others Vs. Mukomba Ananstasia T/a Taita Wilfred, HCCS No. 22 of 2015, where it was observed that: “I would agree with plaintiff’s counsel that for matters of time and rights to sue, the Court is bound to consider the pleadings of the plaintiffs alone. It may well be that the defendant has in their defence, raised facts that would support the argument that the case is time barred or has no cause of action but those are facts still in contention and subject to litigation. The authorities appear to strongly support the principle that the Court should only consider the plaint and its attachments, and nothing more.”
In the present case, the appellant detailed her claim under paragraph 4 of her plaint, noting that she was dispossessed in 2015, when the defendant began asserting ownership over the land. This led the Court to find that the suit was indeed filed within the statutory period, correcting a misinterpretation by the trial court on when the cause of action arose.
Ownership and Evidence Analysis
The core issue of ownership required the High Court to re-evaluate both parties’ evidence. The appellant, now aged over 82, asserted that she inherited the land from her father in 1959 and, since 1980, had maintained possession until 2015 when the defendant forcibly removed her. In contrast, the defendant’s narrative was inconsistent, claiming acquisition through various alleged arrangements with his father, none of which was substantiated by the evidence.
The Court determined that the appellant's evidence was more credible and compelling. Notably, a purported will presented by the defendant to claim ownership was ruled invalid as it lacked necessary formalities, such as the maker’s endorsement and witnesses, as required under Section 50 of the Succession Act.
General Damages Awarded for Trespass
The appellant sought general damages for trespass, emotional distress, and the loss of quiet enjoyment of her land. The Court awarded UGX 5,000,000 as general damages, considering the emotional toll and inconvenience caused by the defendant’s prolonged occupation.
Conclusion
The High Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and ruled in favor of the appellant, reaffirming the protection of landowners’ rights within the statutory limitation framework.
Read full case below
https://ulii.org/akn/ug/judgment/ughc/2024/1058/eng@2024-11-07
If you have found this useful do not forget to leave a comment in the message box below Thank you for reading
.jpg)
Commentaires