Wakilii

Concorp International (U) Ltd v Uganda Muslims Supreme Council (HCT-00-CC-CS 318 of 2002)

High Court · [2011] UGCOMMC 102 · 2011 Preliminary Objections Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objections to civil suit for breach of building contract
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed. Suit to proceed to trial on the merits subject to payment of any assessed additional court fees within 21 days.

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

Held that the suit was not time barred. The Minutes of 4 October 2001 constituted sufficient acknowledgment of the plaintiff's claim under sections 22 and 23 of the Limitation Act, rekindling claims that would otherwise be statute-barred. Court directed the Deputy Registrar to re-assess court fees and gave the plaintiff 21 days to pay any shortfall, otherwise the suit to proceed on merit.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed. Suit to proceed to trial on the merits subject to payment of any assessed additional court fees within 21 days.

Facts

The plaintiff contracted with the defendant to construct the National Mosque at Old Kampala under an agreement dated 12 April 1978. The date for practical completion was 24 August 1980. The works were not completed and payments were not made as contracted. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 18 May 1988 acknowledging some claims. On 4 October 2001, the parties met and the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's claims and undertook to pay them once prepared and confirmed by the consultant. Shortly thereafter, in November 2001, the defendant evicted the plaintiff from the site. The suit was filed on 21 November 2001 claiming special damages, general damages, exemplary damages, interest and costs for breach and wrongful termination of the building contract. The defendant raised preliminary objections on limitation and insufficient court fees.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is time barred under the Limitation Act.
  2. Whether written acknowledgment of debt by the defendant rekindled the plaintiff's claims under sections 22 and 23 of the Limitation Act.
  3. Whether the prescribed court fees were paid on filing the suit.

Orders

  • The suit is not time barred.
  • The Deputy Registrar is directed to re-assess the court fees payable in respect of the plaintiff's claim.
  • The Deputy Registrar shall serve the parties' respective counsel with the fee re-assessment.
  • If the fees paid to date are found insufficient, the plaintiff shall pay the extra fees within 21 days from the date of service of the re-assessment of court fees.
  • The suit shall proceed to determine the remaining issues on merit.
  • Costs shall be in the course of the suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Acknowledgment of Debt — Effect on Limitation Period
Where a debtor acknowledges his indebtedness in writing, even if he does not specify the amount, the right of action is deemed to have accrued on the date of acknowledgment, thereby rekindling claims otherwise statute-barred under sections 22(4) and 23(1) of the Limitation Act.
Civil Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Acknowledgment — What Constitutes Valid Acknowledgment
An acknowledgment for the purposes of section 22 and 23 of the Limitation Act need not specify the amount of the debt; all that is necessary is that the debtor recognizes the existence of the debt and that the person who might rely on the statute recognizes the rights against himself.
Civil Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Acknowledgment — Minutes of Meeting Acknowledging Claims
Minutes of a meeting signed by the parties' representatives in which the defendant acknowledges the work done, acknowledges the plaintiff's claim regarding the project, and undertakes to pay the claim once prepared and confirmed by the consultant constitute sufficient acknowledgment in writing under the Limitation Act.
Constitutional Law — Administration of Justice — Substantive Justice over Technicalities
Article 126 of the Constitution enjoins Courts to administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. Where a debtor acknowledges indebtedness, in the interest of justice such a debtor should not be allowed to invoke the statutory limitation period to bar a claim whose amount can be ascertained by evidence.
Civil Procedure — Court Fees — Insufficient Fees — Procedure for Re-Assessment
Where it is unclear whether sufficient court fees have been paid, the proper course is for the court to order the Deputy Registrar to re-assess the fees and direct the plaintiff to pay any shortfall within a specified time, failing which the plaint may be rejected under Order 7 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (6)

  • Jones v Bellgrove Properties [1949] 2 KB 700
  • Re Gee & Co (Woolwich) Ltd [1974] 2 WLR 515
  • Good v Parry [1903] 2 QB 418
  • Dungate v Dungate [1963] 3 All ER 393
  • Surrendra Overseas Ltd v Government of Sri Lanka [1977] 2 All ER 481
  • Clouds Ten Ltd v Property Services Ltd and Another (HCCS No. 854 of 2004)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Concorp International (U) Ltd v Uganda Muslims Supreme Council (HCT-00-CC-CS 318 of 2002) [2011] UGCommC 102 (10 May 2011)
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.