[2008] UGHC 78

[2008] UGHC 78

The court found that, although the plaintiff did not specifically plead his capacity, the plaint as a whole indicated he was a family member of the deceased and thus entitled to sue. However, the suit was filed more than twelve months after the death of the deceased, contrary to section 6(3) of the Law Reform...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] UGHC 78
Parties
Plaintiff: Okeng Washing Ton; Defendant: Attorney General; Defendant: Mike Okello
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No.16 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
plaint_rejected_as_time_barred
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Wrongful Death Claims, Capacity to Sue
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Limitation Periods Wrongful Death Claims Capacity to Sue

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Okeng Washing Ton

Plaintiff

Attorney General

Defendant

Mike Okello

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has pleaded the capacity in which he brings the suit as required by law.
  2. 2 Whether the suit is time-barred under section 6(3) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap. 79.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the plaintiff did not specifically plead his capacity, the plaint as a whole indicated he was a family member of the deceased and thus entitled to sue. However, the suit was filed more than twelve months after the death of the deceased, contrary to section 6(3) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Cap. 79. No disability or exception was pleaded to bring the action within time. The court held that statutory limitation periods are mandatory and not subject to the Limitation Act, Cap. 80, due to section 32 of that Act. As a result, the suit was time-barred and the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Costs were...

Court Disposition

plaint_rejected_as_time_barred

Orders

  • The plaint in this suit is rejected pursuant to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • The defendant is awarded the costs of the rejected suit.