[2013] UGSC 8

[2013] UGSC 8

The Supreme Court held that the appellants' cause of action did not accrue in 1983 when the disputed salary scale was introduced, but rather in November 2001 when Makerere University's Council made a final decision to keep the appellants at M6, rejecting the recommendation to place them at M5. The Court found that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] UGSC 8
Parties
Appellant: Charles Lubowa; Appellant: W. N. E. Kisambira Masaba; Appellant: Y. B. Kagwa; Appellant: E. J. Bampata; Appellant: J. C. Kiguli Mayanja; Respondent: Makerere University
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
19 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Challenging Dismissal of Suit as Time Barred
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court set aside. Suit remitted to the High Court for determination on the merits. Costs awarded to appellants in all courts.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Breach of Employment Contract, Salary Scales Disputes, Waiver and Estoppel, Cause of Action Accrual
Source Language
english
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Breach of Employment Contract Salary Scales Disputes Waiver and Estoppel Cause of Action Accrual

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Lubowa

Appellant

W. N. E. Kisambira Masaba

Appellant

Y. B. Kagwa

Appellant

E. J. Bampata

Appellant

J. C. Kiguli Mayanja

Appellant

Makerere University

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Challenging Dismissal of Suit as Time Barred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act.
  2. 2 When the cause of action for breach of contract accrued in the context of ongoing negotiations and studies.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct amounted to a waiver or estoppel against pleading limitation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the appellants' cause of action did not accrue in 1983 when the disputed salary scale was introduced, but rather in November 2001 when Makerere University's Council made a final decision to keep the appellants at M6, rejecting the recommendation to place them at M5. The Court found that until this final decision, the matter was subject to ongoing studies, reports, and representations by the respondent, and all material facts necessary for the appellants to sue were not present. The respondent's conduct, including assurances and requests for the appellants to wait for the outcome of studies, meant that the appellants could not reasonably have commenced...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court set aside. Suit remitted to the High Court for determination on the merits. Costs awarded to appellants in all courts.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court are set aside.