[2005] UGHC 68

[2005] UGHC 68

The court held that the relevant date for the commencement of the limitation period was when the applicant was retired from public service, which was 25 June 2003, as evidenced by the letter received by the applicant. The applicant's argument that time should run from the date of an inter-ministerial communication...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] UGHC 68
Parties
Applicant: Bamanya Gersom; Respondent: Rattan Singh, Sarwan Singh and Evaristor Mugabi
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
High Court Misc. App. No. 961 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
application dismissed as time-barred
Judges
Bybakama, J
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Limitation Periods, Public Service Dismissal, Natural Justice
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Limitation Periods Public Service Dismissal Natural Justice

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bamanya Gersom

Applicant

Rattan Singh, Sarwan Singh and Evaristor Mugabi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the application for judicial review was filed within the prescribed limitation period.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied natural justice in the process of interdiction and retirement from public service.
  3. 3 Whether there was good reason to extend the time for filing the application beyond the statutory period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the relevant date for the commencement of the limitation period was when the applicant was retired from public service, which was 25 June 2003, as evidenced by the letter received by the applicant. The applicant's argument that time should run from the date of an inter-ministerial communication to which he was not entitled was rejected as unavailing. The application for judicial review was filed on 16 November 2004, well outside the three-month statutory period. No sufficient reason was advanced for the delay. The court concluded that the application was time-barred and dismissed it accordingly, awarding taxed costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed as time-barred

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for being out of time.
  • The respondent is awarded taxed costs of the application.