[2005] UGHC 101

[2005] UGHC 101

The court held that the suit for unlawful arrest and imprisonment was time-barred, as the cause of action arose on the plaintiff's release from detention on 31st August 2001, and the suit was filed on 9th August 2004, exceeding the two-year limitation period prescribed by Section 3 of Cap 72. The court found no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] UGHC 101
Parties
Plaintiff: Karuhanga Wilfred; Defendant: Attorney General
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
HCT-05-CV-CS-0097-2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary_objection_upheld_in_part
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Unlawful Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, Government Liability
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Limitation Periods Unlawful Arrest Malicious Prosecution Government Liability

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

Karuhanga Wilfred

Plaintiff

Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the suit for unlawful arrest and imprisonment was filed within the statutory limitation period.
  2. 2 Whether the suit for malicious prosecution was filed within the statutory limitation period.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's alleged disability justified extension of time for filing the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the suit for unlawful arrest and imprisonment was time-barred, as the cause of action arose on the plaintiff's release from detention on 31st August 2001, and the suit was filed on 9th August 2004, exceeding the two-year limitation period prescribed by Section 3 of Cap 72. The court found no evidence of disability sufficient to justify extension of time under Order 7 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, the cause of action for malicious prosecution arose upon the dismissal of criminal proceedings in favour of the plaintiff on 14th November 2002, and the suit was filed within two years of that date. Therefore, the objection succeeded in part: the claim for...

Court Disposition

preliminary_objection_upheld_in_part

Orders

  • Claim for unlawful arrest and imprisonment is rejected as time-barred.
  • Claim for malicious prosecution is maintainable and may proceed.