[2006] UGHC 72

[2006] UGHC 72

The court found that the suit was barred by limitation under section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, as the cause of action arose in 1988 and the suit was filed in 2001, well beyond the three-year statutory period. The plaintiff did not plead any disability to justify...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] UGHC 72
Parties
Plaintiff: Sam Kirembwe; Defendant: Attorney General
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit No.73 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
plaint_rejected_as_time_barred
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Preliminary Objections, Res Judicata, Government Contracts
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Limitation Periods Preliminary Objections Res Judicata Government Contracts

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sam Kirembwe

Plaintiff

Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the suit is barred by limitation under section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
  2. 2 Whether the suit is res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suit was barred by limitation under section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, as the cause of action arose in 1988 and the suit was filed in 2001, well beyond the three-year statutory period. The plaintiff did not plead any disability to justify extension under section 5 of the Act. The court considered the plaintiff's argument regarding acknowledgements of indebtedness under section 22(4) of the Limitation Act, but determined that the cited letters either did not constitute valid acknowledgements or, if they did, the suit was still filed outside the permissible period. On the issue of res judicata, the court held that...

Court Disposition

plaint_rejected_as_time_barred

Orders

  • The plaint is rejected for being barred by limitation under section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
  • Costs are awarded to the defendant.