Wakilii

Eridadi v The Attorney General (Civil Appeal 6 of 1990)

Supreme Court · [1991] UGSC 16 · 1991 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court order upholding a preliminary objection that the suit was time-barred under the limitation statute.
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; suit reinstated and remitted to the High Court for trial limited to the unlawful detention claim falling within the twelve-month limitation period.

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 Supreme Court held that the trial judge wrongly treated unlawful arrest and unlawful detention as a single cause of action arising on one date. Unlawful detention or false imprisonment is a continuing tort, so a fresh cause of action accrues each day the detention continues. Where detention begins more than twelve months before suit but continues into the limitation period, damages are recoverable for the portion falling within the twelve months, though the earlier portion and the distinct claim for unlawful arrest remain time-barred. However, because the plaint failed to plead disability or grounds of exemption from limitation as Order 7 rule 6 mandatorily requires, that defect was fatal to the out-of-time portion. Appeal partly allowed; suit remitted for the in-time detention claim.

Facts

On 24 September 1986 the appellant was arrested by soldiers of the National Resistance Army and detained successively at Busia Police Station, Mbuya Military Barracks, Kampala Central Police Station and Jinja Road Police Station. He remained in continuous custody until his release on 12 August 1987, without ever being charged in any court or served with a detention order. On 18 January 1988 he sued the Attorney General, in his representative capacity under the Government Proceedings Act, for special, general and exemplary damages for wrongful and unlawful arrest and detention. At the hearing the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the action, founded on tort against the Government, had been filed more than twelve months after the cause of action arose and was therefore time-barred under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969, requiring rejection of the plaint under Order 7 rule 11(d). The trial judge upheld the objection, prompting this appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether unlawful detention or false imprisonment is a continuing tort for the purposes of limitation.
  2. Whether the period of unlawful detention is severable from the unlawful arrest for the purpose of limitation.
  3. Whether the appellant's claim was time-barred under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969.
  4. Whether the appellant's failure to plead disability or grounds of exemption in the plaint under Order 7 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules was fatal.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed to the extent indicated.
  • Suit referred back to the High Court for trial of so much of the cause of action for unlawful detention as falls within the period of limitation (from 18 January 1987 to release).
  • Appellant awarded 3/5 of the costs of the appeal.
  • Costs in the court below to abide the result of the suit.

Key headnotes

Tort Law — False Imprisonment — Continuing Tort
Unlawful detention or false imprisonment is a continuing tort, so that a fresh cause of action accrues continuously throughout the duration of the imprisonment.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Continuing Tort and Recoverable Period
Where an imprisonment begins more than twelve months before suit but continues into the limitation period, damages may be recovered for the portion of the detention falling within the twelve months before action, while the statute bars recovery for the portion falling outside it.
Tort Law — Limitation — Accrual and Severability of Causes of Action
Limitation runs from the commission of each wrongful act; unlawful arrest and unlawful detention are distinct causes of action differing in duration and nature, and the effect of limitation must be considered separately for each rather than treating them as arising together on a single date.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Mandatory Pleading of Exemption from Limitation
Where a suit is instituted after the limitation period, the plaint must mandatorily show the grounds on which exemption from limitation is claimed under Order 7 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules; failure to plead such grounds, including any disability, is fatal and the plaint must be rejected under Order 7 rule 11.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Government Proceedings Act (Cap. 69)
  • Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969 s.2(1)
  • Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969 s.4
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 6
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 11(d)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 13

Cases cited (6)

  • Siwali Kidumu vs Attorney General (1976) HCB 87
  • Musambu vs West Mengo District Administration (1971) EA 379
  • Iga vs Makerere University (1972) EA 65
  • John Siya v. The Attorney General (1972) ULR part 1 p. 71
  • Difasi v. The Attorney (1972) E.A.335
  • O'connor V Isaacs (1956) 2.Q.B. 288 at 328
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.