Wakilii

Arituha Herbert Edgar v African Kings Uganda Limited and 2 Others [2026] UGCOMMC 247

High Court · 2026 Preliminary Objection Upheld — Suit Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection to civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Suit dismissed as time barred under the Limitation Act

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 civil suit filed in March 2022 for breach of contract alleged to have occurred in December 2015 was dismissed as time barred. The court held that the six-year limitation period under section 3(1)(a) of the Limitation Act had expired before the suit was filed, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any exception to limitation that would save the claim.

Outcome

Suit dismissed as time barred under the Limitation Act

Facts

In December 2015, the plaintiff contracted with the 1st and 3rd defendants to install 29 prefabricated guard shelters at MTN-South Sudan sites and carry out welding at 130 sites. The defendants advanced USD 6,300, leaving a balance of USD 8,200. The plaintiff completed the installation of 29 sites and delivered an invoice in December 2015 to the 1st and 2nd defendants at their offices in Ministers' Village, Ntinda. Despite several promises to pay for work done and transport, the defendants failed to settle the outstanding amount of USD 13,966. The plaintiff filed suit in March 2022. The suit against the 3rd defendant was withdrawn by consent. The 1st and 2nd defendants raised a preliminary objection that the suit was time barred.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit against the defendants is time barred under the Limitation Act.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection raised by the defendants upheld.
  • Main suit dismissed as barred by limitation.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Preliminary Objections — Requirements and Effect
A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or arises by clear implication from the pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit.
Limitation — Time for Bringing Actions Founded on Contract
Actions founded on contract must be brought within six years from the date on which the cause of action arose, as prescribed by section 3(1)(a) of the Limitation Act.
Limitation — Mere Attempts to Recover Payment Do Not Resurrect Cause of Action
Attempts to recover payment after a breach of contract do not resurrect the cause of action or extend the limitation period unless there is evidence of acknowledgement of the claim or part payment by the defendants.
Limitation — Court Cannot Extend Statutory Time Limits
The court has no inherent jurisdiction to enlarge time laid down by statute.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (4)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969) E.A 696
  • Nelson Sande Ndugo v Electoral Commission (HCCS No. 4 of 2006)
  • Donovan v Gwentoys Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 472
  • Makula International v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga [1982] HCB 24

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Arituha Herbert Edgar v African Kings Uganda Limited and 2 Others 2026 UGCommC 247 (23 March 2026)
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.