Wakilii

Centenary Rural Development Bank Limited v Lt (Rtd) Kafuko Grace (Miscellaneous Application 60 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 175 · 2026 Application Granted — Plaint Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out plaint in underlying civil suit for being time-barred and disclosing no cause of action
Decision
Plaint struck out as against the applicant

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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 held that a suit claiming unlawful arrest and impoundment of a motor vehicle in 2009, filed in 2023, was statute-barred under the Limitation Act. The six-year limitation period ran from the date of the alleged wrongful acts in 2009, not from the date of loan clearance in 2022. The plaint was also struck out for failing to disclose a cause of action, as it did not establish that police officers who arrested the respondent and impounded the vehicle were agents or servants of the applicant bank.

Facts

The respondent obtained a loan from the applicant bank in 2008, pledging motor vehicles as security. In October 2009, the applicant allegedly made a false report to police that the respondent had unlawfully changed the engine and number plate of one vehicle. Police arrested the respondent, charged him with forgery, and impounded the vehicle. The respondent cleared his loan and obtained clearance from the bank in 2022. He then filed suit in 2023 seeking declarations that his arrest was malicious and the impoundment unlawful, and claiming return of the vehicle or its monetary value. The applicant applied to strike out the plaint on grounds of limitation and failure to disclose a cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the underlying suit is time-barred under the Limitation Act.
  2. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the applicant.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Plaint in Civil Suit No. 0047 of 2023 struck out as against the applicant for being barred by limitation.
  • Plaint struck out for failure to disclose a cause of action against the applicant.
  • No order as to costs.

Key headnotes

Limitation — Accrual of Cause of Action in Tort — Date from Which Time Runs
In tort actions, the limitation period runs from the date on which the cause of action arose, being the date when the alleged wrongful act first occurred with the knowledge of the allegedly wronged party. A subsequent event that aggravates loss does not change the date on which the right to sue first accrued.
Limitation — Six-Year Period for Actions in Tort — Strict Application
Under Section 3(1)(a) of the Limitation Act, actions founded on tort must be brought within six years from the date on which the cause of action arose. Once the prescribed period has elapsed, the cause of action becomes unenforceable unless the plaintiff successfully pleads statutory exceptions.
Limitation — Pleading Grounds of Exemption — Order 7 Rule 6 CPR
Where a suit is instituted after expiration of the limitation period, Order 7 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires the plaint to show the grounds upon which exemption from the law of limitation is claimed. A plaint that does not plead an exception where the cause of action is barred by limitation is bad in law.
Striking Out Plaint — Disclosure of Cause of Action — Three-Part Test
A cause of action is disclosed if the plaint shows that the plaintiff enjoys a legal right, the defendant violated that right, and the defendant is liable for that violation. The court must consider the pleadings in their entirety when determining whether a cause of action is revealed.
Vicarious Liability — Police Officers — Requirement to Establish Agency or Control
To establish vicarious liability for acts of police officers, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the officers were under the control and direction of the defendant, or were performing a delegated duty on the defendant's behalf, or that the defendant interfered with or controlled the manner in which the officers carried out their work. Absent such facts, no cause of action is disclosed against the defendant.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Limitation Act Cap 80 s.3
  • Limitation Act Cap 80 s.3(1)(a)
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.7
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 6 Rule 29
  • Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 6 Rule 30
  • Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 7 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 7 Rule 11(a)
  • Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 7 Rule 11(d)
  • Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 52 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 52 Rule 3

Cases cited (13)

  • Arinaitwe & Ors v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 201 of 2012)
  • Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Limited (SCCA No. 02 of 2001)
  • Thokan v Kriegler and Another (40781/18) [2022] ZAGPJHC 841
  • Kapeka Coffee Works Limited v NPART (CACA No. 3 of 2000)
  • Madhvani International S.A v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2004)
  • Mohammed B. Sarasi (CACA No. 42 of 2008)
  • Burkett v. James [1977] 2 All E.R. 801
  • Dima Domnic Poro v Inyani & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2016)
  • Vas Garage Ltd v MTN Uganda Ltd (Civil Suit No. 689 of 2022)
  • Serugo v Kampala City Council & Another [1999] UGSC 23
  • Lubowa & 4 Ors v Makerere University [2013] UGSC 8
  • Cotter V Attorney General (1938) 5 EACA 18
  • Kigozi v Uganda Commercial Bank (Civil Suit No. 12 of 1996)
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.