The High Court sitting in Masindi has struck out a land dispute suit filed against the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC), after finding that the case was legally defective and failed to disclose a valid cause of action. The court also dismissed a related appeal challenging a temporary injunction on grounds that it was filed outside the statutory timeline.

The decisions were delivered by Justice Isah Serunkuma in relation to Miscellaneous Application Number 22 of 2024, which arose from High Court Civil Suit Number 45 of 2023. In the main suit, Francis Tuhwerize and ten others sued UMSC over alleged ownership and interference with land located in Panyadoli B Village, Panyadoli Parish, Mutunda Sub-county, Kibanda North County, Kiryandongo District.

The land in dispute measures approximately 646 acres and forms part of Ranch 17A under the Bunyoro Ranching Scheme. The plaintiffs claimed that they had occupied and utilised the land since 1970. The other claimants included Emmanuel John Lokwiya, Dennis Woia, Stephen Rushagara, Frank Kamuhanda, Charles Bazara, David Mugisha, Stephen Kaiana, Eve Kirabo, Robert Otim, and Stephen Muhanguzi.

UMSC applied to have the suit struck out, arguing that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was barred by law, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process. Through its lawyers, Makmot Kibwanga and Company Advocates, the Council contended that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate lawful possession or a legally enforceable interest in the land. UMSC further argued that the defects in the plaint were fundamental and incapable of being cured through amendment. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Muhammad Ali Aluma.

The respondents were represented by Kasangaki and Company Advocates, who maintained that the suit was properly before court. They asserted that the plaintiffs had acquired interests in the land from the late Professor Dr. John Joseph Otim and had occupied it since the 1970s. The plaintiffs accused UMSC of trespass, alleging that the Council was secretly claiming ownership, applying for a certificate of title, and planning to evict them.

In his ruling, Justice Serunkuma reiterated the legal principles governing the striking out of pleadings, emphasizing that a plaint must clearly establish the existence of a right, its violation, and the defendant’s liability. While the court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had pleaded facts suggesting occupation and a claimed interest in the land, it found that the alleged violations by UMSC were speculative and not clearly pleaded.

The judge observed that the plaintiffs’ claims were largely based on apprehensions of possible eviction and alleged plans to acquire a title, rather than on completed acts of trespass or interference. He further noted that the plaint failed to disclose when the cause of action arose, a mandatory requirement under the Civil Procedure Rules. Justice Serunkuma held that courts cannot entertain suits founded on conjecture and that the defects identified were incurable by amendment.

Consequently, High Court Civil Suit Number 45 of 2023 was struck out in its entirety, with each party ordered to bear its own costs.

In a related matter, Civil Appeal Number 70 of 2024, arising from the same dispute, the High Court dismissed an appeal filed by UMSC challenging a temporary injunction earlier granted by an Assistant Registrar in favour of the 11 respondents. Justice Serunkuma ruled that the appeal was filed outside the mandatory seven-day period prescribed by law for appeals against a registrar’s decision.

The court noted that the Assistant Registrar delivered the ruling on April 24, 2024, while the appeal was filed on May 2, 2024, rendering it time-barred, notwithstanding the inclusion of the May 1 public holiday within that period. The judge emphasized that strict compliance with statutory timelines is mandatory and that failure to adhere to them is fatal to an appeal.

URN