[2008] UGHC 119

[2008] UGHC 119

The court held that the claim for malicious prosecution is statute barred, as it was filed more than two years after the cause of action arose, and no disability was pleaded. The claim for breach of contract, including salary arrears and refusal to reinstate, is not statute barred, as the suit was filed within six...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] UGHC 119
Parties
Plaintiff: Justus Kalebo; Defendant: Uganda Revenue Authority
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-00-CV-CS-0405-2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Preliminary objection allowed in part; claim for malicious prosecution struck out; breach of contract claim proceeds.
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Breach of Employment Contract, Malicious Prosecution, Salary Arrears
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Limitation Periods Breach of Employment Contract Malicious Prosecution Salary Arrears

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Justus Kalebo

Plaintiff

Uganda Revenue Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the suit is statute barred under the applicable limitation laws.
  2. 2 Whether refusal to reinstate the plaintiff after acquittal constitutes a tort or is part of breach of contract.
  3. 3 Whether the claim for malicious prosecution is maintainable against the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claim for malicious prosecution is statute barred, as it was filed more than two years after the cause of action arose, and no disability was pleaded. The claim for breach of contract, including salary arrears and refusal to reinstate, is not statute barred, as the suit was filed within six years of the cause of action arising. The court found that the limitation period for breach of contract against a scheduled corporation is six years, not three, and the proviso reducing the period to three years applies only to personal injury claims. The court also noted that the defendant's correspondence in 2004 did not communicate final termination, and the plaintiff's...

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection allowed in part; claim for malicious prosecution struck out; breach of contract claim proceeds.

Orders

  • The tortious action of malicious prosecution is struck out under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The objection on breach of contract of employment is overruled.