Wakilii

Arituha Herbert Edgar v African Kings Uganda Limited and 2 Others (Civil Suit 152 of 2022)

High Court · [2026] UGCOMMC 247 · 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

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

The High Court Commercial Division upheld a preliminary objection that a breach of contract suit filed in March 2022 was time barred under section 3(1)(a) of the Limitation Act, where the cause of action arose in December 2015. The plaintiff's alleged attempts to recover payment after December 2015 did not resurrect the cause of action absent evidence of acknowledgement or part payment by the defendants. The court held it has no inherent jurisdiction to enlarge statutory limitation periods and dismissed the suit.

Outcome

Suit dismissed as time barred

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 but left an outstanding balance of USD 8,200. The plaintiff completed installation of 29 sites and delivered an invoice in December 2015 to the defendants' offices in Ministers' Village, Ntinda. Despite several attempts to recover payment and promises by the defendants to pay, no payment was made. The plaintiff filed suit on 17 March 2022 claiming USD 13,966 for outstanding payment. The suit against the 3rd defendant was withdrawn by consent.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 is upheld.
  • The main suit is barred by limitation and is accordingly dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Preliminary Objections — Requirements and Timing
A preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. A preliminary objection ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity, as the determination of the same might have the effect of disposing of the suit.
Limitation of Actions — Contract Claims — Six Year Period
Under section 3(1)(a) of the Limitation Act Cap 290, actions founded on contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action arose. The primary purpose of the limitation period is to protect a defendant from the injustice of having to face a stale claim.
Limitation of Actions — Accrual of Cause of Action in Breach of Contract
In a breach of contract claim, the cause of action arises when the breach occurs. Mere attempts by a plaintiff to recover alleged monies due do not resurrect the cause of action absent evidence of acknowledgement of the claim or part payment by the defendants.
Limitation of Actions — Court's Jurisdiction to Extend Time
The court has no inherent jurisdiction to enlarge time laid down by a statute. A plaintiff barred by limitation can only be saved by statutory exceptions to limitation, the application of which must be demonstrated to the court.

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 (Civil Suit 152 of 2022) [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.