Wakilii

J. A Osma V Transocean (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No.1385 86)

High Court · [1990] UGHC 3 · 1990 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection raised by defendant to strike out plaint for being time-barred and failing to disclose a cause of action
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 detinue is a continuing tort for purposes of the Limitation Act. Where a defendant wrongfully detains a plaintiff's chattel after demand, a fresh cause of action arises from day to day so long as the wrongful detention continues. The plaintiff can recover for such portion of the tort as lies within the six-year limitation period under s.4 of the Limitation Act, even if the first commission occurred outside that period. Preliminary objection overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on the merits

Facts

The plaintiff imported a reconditioned Datsun Station Wagon from Japan which arrived at Mombasa port on or about 14 March 1979. The defendant company cleared the vehicle from Mombasa and it arrived in Kampala on 10 September 1979. The vehicle was not handed over to the plaintiff despite numerous requests. Notice of intention to sue was served on 29 July 1986 and the suit was filed on 14 November 1986. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that the suit, being in detinue, was time-barred under s.4 of the Limitation Act Cap 70, which requires actions in tort to be instituted within six years from when the cause of action accrued. The defendant contended that the cause of action accrued on 10 September 1979 when the vehicle arrived in Kampala, and the suit filed over seven years later was statute-barred.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit in detinue was time-barred under the Limitation Act.
  2. Whether the plaint disclosed a proper cause of action against the defendant.
  3. Whether detinue is a continuing tort for the purpose of the Limitation Act.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.

Rules and key headnotes

Tort Law — Detinue — Nature of the Tort — Whether Detinue is a Continuing Tort
Detinue is a continuing tort for the purpose of limitation. So long as the wrongful detention of a chattel continues after demand, a fresh cause of action arises from day to day, and the plaintiff can recover for such portion of the tort as lies within the limitation period even though the first commission of the tort occurred outside the period prescribed by statute.
Tort Law — Detinue — Essential Elements — Demand and Refusal
To constitute a cause of action in the tort of detinue, there must be a demand by the plaintiff for the release of the chattel and a refusal by the defendant to release the same. Where the plaint does not aver the date of demand, the date when the chattel arrived or became available for collection is taken as the date of first commission of the tort.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objection — Striking Out Plaint — Test for Cause of Action
In determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action under O.7 r.11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court must look only at the plaint itself.
Statutory Interpretation — Limitation Act — Continuing Torts — Application of Time Bar
In continuing torts such as nuisance, false imprisonment, and detinue, where consequences and damages are continuous, the Limitation Act does not bar recovery for such portion of the tort as lies within the limitation period, notwithstanding that the first commission of the tort occurred outside the statutory period.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Onesforo Bamuwayira and 2 Others v Attorney General (1973) HCB 87
  • Nagoko v Sir Charles Turyahamba and Another (1976) HCB 99
  • Iga v Makerere University (1972) EA 5
  • Suwali Kidimu v Attorney General (1975) HCB 87
  • Musomba v West Mengo District Administration (1971) EA 379

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

J. A Osma V Transocean (U) Ltd (Civil Suit No.1385_86) [1990] UGHC 3 (30 October 1990)
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.