The High Court sitting in Masindi has struck out a land dispute case against the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC), ruling that the suit was fundamentally defective and did not disclose a valid cause of action. The same court, presided over by Justice Isah Serunkuma, also dismissed a related appeal challenging a temporary injunction, after finding that it had been filed out of time.
The rulings arose from Miscellaneous Application Number 22 of 2024, stemming from High Court Civil Suit Number 45 of 2023, in which Francis Tuhwerize and ten others sued the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council over ownership and alleged interference with land in Panyadoli B Village, Panyadoli Parish, Mutunda Sub-county, Kibanda North County, Kiryandongo District.
The disputed land measures approximately 646 acres and forms part of Ranch 17A under the Bunyoro Ranching Scheme. The plaintiffs claimed to have occupied and enjoyed the land since 1970. The other claimants are Emmanuel John Lokwiya, Dennis Woia, Stephen Rushagara, Frank Kamuhanda, Charles Bazara, David Mugisha, Stephen Kaiana, Eve Kirabo, Robert Otim, and Stephen Muhanguzi.
The Uganda Muslim Supreme Council applied to have the suit struck out, arguing that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was barred in law, frivolous and vexatious, and amounted to an abuse of court process. Through its lawyers, Makmot Kibwanga and Company Advocates, the Council further contended that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate lawful possession of the land and that the defects in the plaint were so fundamental that no amendment could cure them. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Muhammad Ali Aluma.
UMSC was represented by Makmot Kibwanga and Company Advocates, while the respondents were represented by Kasangaki and Company Advocates. In response, the plaintiffs maintained that their suit was properly before court, insisting that they had occupied and used the land since the 1970s after acquiring interests from the late Professor Dr. John Joseph Otim.
They accused the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council of trespass, alleging that the Council, through its agents, was secretly laying claim to the land, applying for a certificate of title, and planning to evict them. They argued that these actions constituted a valid cause of action and that their main suit stood a high chance of success. In his analysis, Justice Serunkuma restated the legal principles governing the striking out of pleadings, noting that a plaint must clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff had a right, that the right had been violated, and that the defendant was liable for that violation.
While the court accepted that the plaintiffs had pleaded facts suggesting occupation and a claimed interest in the land, the judge found that the alleged acts of violation by the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council were speculative and not clearly pleaded. The court observed that the plaintiffs’ assertions were largely based on fears of possible eviction and alleged plans to acquire a land title, rather than on completed acts of trespass or interference.Justice Serunkuma further noted that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate when the cause of action arose, a mandatory requirement under the Civil Procedure Rules. He ruled that courts cannot entertain suits founded on conjecture and that the defects in the plaint were incurable by amendment.
As a result, 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 ruling in Civil Appeal Number 70 of 2024, arising from the same dispute, the High Court dismissed an appeal by the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council challenging an earlier decision by an Assistant Registrar who had granted a temporary injunction in favour of the 11 respondents.
Justice Serunkuma held that the appeal had been filed outside the mandatory seven-day period prescribed by law for appeals from a registrar’s decision. The court found that the Assistant Registrar delivered the ruling on April 24, 2024, while the appeal was filed on May 2, 2024, rendering it time-barred despite 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 do so is fatal to an appeal.
****URN****