Wakilii

Amina Alibhai Kara (admin of the estste of late Alibhi kara) v Kanabar Vithaldas (Civil Suit 14 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGHCLD 250 · 2022 Suit Dismissed — Time Barred AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of money under specially endorsed plaint, dismissed on preliminary objection that suit is time barred
Decision
Plaint rejected and suit dismissed as time barred

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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

A suit for recovery of money under a 2010 sale agreement filed in 2019 is time barred under the Limitation Act. The cause of action arose in April 2010 when the balance payment became due. The six-year limitation period expired in 2016. The plaint failed to plead grounds for exemption from limitation as required by Order 7 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Attempts to explain disability in submissions rather than in the plaint are not legally tenable. The plaint was rejected and the suit dismissed.

Outcome

Plaint rejected and suit dismissed as time barred

Facts

The plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of the late Alibhai Kara, sued to recover UGX 85,000,000 being the balance purchase price for land sold to the defendant in 2010. The sale agreement was executed on 13 March 2010 at a total consideration of UGX 230,000,000. The defendant paid UGX 70,000,000 on 19 February 2010 and UGX 75,000,000 on 10 March 2010, leaving a balance of UGX 85,000,000. Under clause 5 of the agreement, the vendors were to surrender vacant possession within one month from execution, whereupon the balance would become payable. The balance was therefore due on 13 April 2010. The plaintiff instituted the suit by specially endorsed plaint on 4 March 2019. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit was time barred under the Limitation Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is time barred

Orders

  • The Plaint filed in Civil Suit No. 014 of 2019 is hereby rejected under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Civil Suit No. 014 of 2019 is dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation of Actions — Contract — Six-Year Period — Commencement of Time
Actions founded on contract must be brought within six years from the date on which the cause of action arose, and the cause of action arises when the obligation to pay becomes due under the contract.
Limitation of Actions — Exemption from Limitation — Pleading Requirements
Where a suit is instituted after the expiration of the limitation period, the plaint must show the grounds upon which exemption from the law of limitation is claimed. Attempts to explain disability or exemption in submissions rather than in the plaint are not legally tenable.
Rejection of Plaint — Time Bar — Determination from Pleadings
In considering whether a suit is barred by limitation, the court looks at the pleadings only and no evidence is required. Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by law, the plaint shall be rejected.
Advocate's Negligence — Client Bound by Counsel's Actions
A client is bound by the actions of his counsel. Negligent drafting of the plaint or incompetence on the part of counsel is not an excuse for a client to escape being bound by counsel's actions. The client's remedy lies against the negligent advocate in a separate action.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (8)

  • Jesse Gulyetonda v Henry Muganwa Kajuria (Court of Appeal No. 31 of 1996)
  • Madhvani International S.A. v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2004)
  • Polyfibre (U) Ltd Vs. Matovu Paul & 3 Ors HCCS NO. 412
  • Mukooli v Nabbale and 3 Ors (High Court Civil Suit No. 282 of 2013)
  • Sebowa Jolly Joe v Equity Bank Uganda Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 18 of 2016)
  • Mohammad B. Kasasa v Jasphar Buyonga Sirasi Bwogi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2008)
  • Capt. Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)
  • Handon Daniel v Yolamu Egondi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Amina_Alibhai_Kara_(admin_of_the_estste_of_late_Alibhi_kara)_v_Kanabar_Vithaldas_(Civil_Suit_14_of_2019)_[2022]_UGHCLD_250_(4_November_2022)
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.