Wakilii

Lubowa and Others v Makerere University (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2008)

Court of Appeal · [2011] UGCA 17 · 2011 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from High Court dismissal of suit on preliminary objection that the claim was time barred
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court dismissal of the time-barred suit upheld with costs to the respondent

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants' suit was time barred. The cause of action arose in 1983 when General Circular No. 631 introduced the new salary scale and the appellants' U2 scale was wrongfully converted to M9. The respondent's subsequent shifting of the appellants between scales was not an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of the Limitation Act, and ongoing negotiations or complaints did not stop time running. As the suit was filed in 2004, well beyond the prescribed period, it was correctly dismissed by the High Court.

Facts

The appellants were appointed by Makerere University as Chief Technicians and worked between 1970 and 1999. Before 1983 they were in the U2 salary scale. On 15 March 1983, by General Circular No. 631, the respondent and the Government of Uganda introduced the 'M' salary scale, and the appellants were placed in M9, which they regarded as a wrongful demotion from their U2 scale. The respondent subsequently moved them from M9 to M7 (1990) and then to M6 (1993). The appellants contended they should have been placed in M5, as recommended by the Rwendeire Report and the Inspector General of Government. On 22 November 2001 the respondent's Council confirmed the appellants were properly placed in M6. On 30 April 2004 the appellants filed HCCS No. 323 of 2004 seeking arrears of salaries and allowances of about Shs 430,062,288. The High Court upheld a preliminary objection that the suit was time barred and dismissed it.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge erred in upholding the preliminary objection that the suit (HCCS No. 323 of 2004) was time barred under the Limitation Act.
  2. Whether the respondent's successive reclassification of the appellants between salary scales constituted an acknowledgement of liability extending the limitation period.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Key headnotes

Limitation — Accrual of Cause of Action — Contract Claims
A cause of action on a contract accrues when there is a person who can sue and another who can be sued, and all material facts entitling the plaintiff to succeed are present; in respect of a wrongful salary reclassification, the cause of action accrues at the date of the act that triggers the loss.
Limitation — Acknowledgement of Liability — Requirements
An acknowledgement that extends the limitation period must be in writing, signed by the maker or his agent, and must recognise the existence of a debt or the rights of the person who might otherwise rely on the statute of limitation; conduct in successively moving an employee between salary scales does not amount to such an acknowledgement.
Limitation — Effect of Negotiations on Time Running
Genuine and active negotiations between parties to a dispute have no effect on when a suit must be filed; a party who needs to commence proceedings within the limitation period must do so and may thereafter seek adjournments for negotiation.
Limitation — Pleading Grounds of Exception
Where a suit is instituted after the expiration of the limitation period, the plaint must show the grounds upon which exception from the limitation law is claimed, and a plaint that fails to do so shall be rejected.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Limitation Act (Cap.80) s.3(1)(a)
  • Limitation Act (Cap.80) s.22
  • Limitation Act (Cap.80) s.22(4)
  • Limitation Act (Cap.80) s.23
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11

Cases cited (3)

  • Peter Mangeni t/a Makerere Institute of Commerce v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1995)
  • Iga v Makerere University [1972] EA 65
  • DW Moore & Co Ltd v Ferrier [1988] 1 All ER 400
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.