[1995] UGHC 6

[1995] UGHC 6

The court found that although the facts and issues in the present suit are substantially the same as those in the previous suit (No. 811 of 1992), the earlier suit was dismissed on a preliminary point not based on merits. According to the principle in Koharehad v. Jan Mogamod, such dismissal does not give rise to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1995] UGHC 6
Parties
Plaintiff: Allen Nsibirwa; Defendant: National Water & Sewage Corporation
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No. 220 of 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
plaint rejected as time barred; costs awarded to defendant
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Limitation Periods, Disability Exception, Negligence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Res Judicata Limitation Periods Disability Exception Negligence

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allen Nsibirwa

Plaintiff

National Water & Sewage Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Is the present suit barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to a previous suit between the same parties and on the same issues?
  2. 2 Is the present suit time barred under the applicable limitation law?
  3. 3 Does protracted negotiation of settlement out of court constitute disability to justify exemption from limitation?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the facts and issues in the present suit are substantially the same as those in the previous suit (No. 811 of 1992), the earlier suit was dismissed on a preliminary point not based on merits. According to the principle in Koharehad v. Jan Mogamod, such dismissal does not give rise to res judicata. Therefore, the present suit is not barred by res judicata. However, the court held that the suit is time barred because the only ground advanced for exemption from limitation was protracted negotiation of settlement out of court, which does not amount to disability under the law. The court agreed with the previous decision that such negotiation could not prevent the...

Court Disposition

plaint rejected as time barred; costs awarded to defendant

Orders

  • Plaint is rejected as being time barred.
  • Plaintiff is condemned to pay costs.