Wakilii

Jane Kiconco T A Kiko Catering Services v Attorney General (Civil Suit 861 of 2019)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 523 · 2025 Suit Struck Off — Time-Barred AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for damages arising from delayed payment of debt
Decision
Suit struck off 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 struck off the plaintiff's suit for damages arising from delayed payment of a debt as time-barred under the Limitation Act. The plaintiff claimed UGX 166,320,000 in interest and damages for loss of business after the Government of Uganda delayed payment of a UGX 63,000,000 debt for 11 years. The court held that the suit, filed in October 2019, was brought more than 12 years after the cause of action arose in June 2007, exceeding the six-year limitation period for contract actions under Section 3(1)(a) of the Limitation Act Cap 290. No justifiable excuse for late filing was pleaded or proved.

Outcome

Suit struck off as time-barred

Facts

The plaintiff provided catering services to Apparel Tri-Star (U) Ltd, which owed her UGX 63,000,000 when it was taken over by the Government of Uganda and LAP Textiles Ltd in June 2007. Under the Memorandum of Understanding governing the takeover, the Government undertook to pay all creditors of Apparel Tri-Star (U) Ltd. Despite the plaintiff's efforts to follow up, the debt was only paid between 2018 and 2019 in installments, 11 years after the takeover. The plaintiff's business collapsed during the delay as the unpaid debt constituted a significant part of her operating capital. The plaintiff sued for damages for loss of business continuity and opportunity cost, plus compound interest at 24% per annum totaling UGX 166,320,000. The defendant contended the suit was time-barred and that the plaintiff lacked a cause of action since she had received full payment.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff's suit is time barred.
  2. Whether the Plaintiff has a cause of action against the Defendant.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest of UGX 166,320,000.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • This suit is hereby struck off the court record for being time-barred.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs of this suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation of Actions — Contract Claims — Six-Year Period
An action 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 Cap 290.
Limitation of Actions — Delayed Payment Claims — Commencement of Limitation Period
Where a party undertakes to pay a debt at a specific time, the limitation period for claims relating to delayed payment of that debt runs from the date of the undertaking, not from the date of eventual payment.
Limitation of Actions — Postponement of Limitation Period — Burden of Proof
A plaintiff seeking to rely on postponement of the limitation period under Sections 22, 23, 24, or 25 of the Limitation Act (on grounds of acknowledgment, part payment, fraud, mistake, or disability) must plead and prove the justifiable excuse for late filing.
Costs — Discretion — Time-Barred Suits
Where a suit is struck off as time-barred but the plaintiff has suffered real prejudice from the defendant's conduct (such as delayed payment causing business collapse), the court may exercise its discretion under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act to order each party to bear their own costs rather than awarding costs to the successful defendant.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (1)

  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jane Kiconco T A Kiko Catering Services v Attorney General (Civil Suit 861 of 2019) [2025] UGCommC 523 (30 December 2025)
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.