Wakilii

International Credit Bank (In Liquidation) v Happy James Tumwebaze Kwerija (HCT-00-CC-CS 30 of 2006)

High Court · [2007] UGCOMMC 38 · 2007 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to plaint in first instance civil suit for loan recovery
Decision
Suit dismissed on preliminary objection

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 for recovery of a restructured loan repayable within four months from 25 November 1997 was time barred when filed on 17 January 2006, more than six years after the cause of action accrued on 25 February 1998. The plaint was rejected under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules as no exemption from the limitation period was pleaded.

Outcome

Suit dismissed on preliminary objection

Facts

The plaintiff bank granted the defendant an overdraft facility of Shs 7,500,000 on 24 April 1997, repayable within six months. The defendant applied for an extension on 23 October 1997. By letter dated 25 November 1997, the defendant acknowledged that the facility had been restructured into a loan repayable in four months. The four-month period expired on 25 February 1998. The plaintiff filed suit on 17 January 2006 seeking to recover Shs 13,193,044 being the loan plus interest. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit was time barred.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit was time barred under section 3(1)(a) of the Limitation Act.
  2. Whether the plaint should be rejected under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Plaint rejected.
  • Suit dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Rejection of Plaint — Suit Time Barred
Where it appears from the statement in the plaint that the suit is barred by limitation, the plaint shall be rejected under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Limitation — Actions Founded on Contract
Actions founded on contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action arose, as provided by section 3(1)(a) of the Limitation Act.
Limitation — Exemption from Limitation Period Must Be Pleaded
Where a plaintiff wishes to rely on any exemption from the limitation period, this must be specifically stated in the pleadings. If it is not pleaded, the plaint should be rejected.
Limitation — Statutory Time Limits Are Substantive Law
Time limits set by statutes are matters of substantive law and not mere technicalities and must be strictly complied with.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (3)

  • Eridadi Otabong Waimo v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1990)
  • Iga v Makerere University (1972) EA 65
  • Uganda Revenue Authority v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (1997-2001) UCL 149

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

International Credit Bank (In Liquidation) v Happy James Tumwebaze Kwerija (HCT-00-CC-CS 30 of 2006) [2007] UGCommC 38 (19 April 2007)
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.