Wakilii

Mangeni v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal 13 of 1995)

Supreme Court · [1998] UGSC 31 · 1998 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court ruling dismissing a suit as time-barred on a preliminary objection.
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's dismissal of the suit as time-barred upheld, with costs to the respondent.

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 6 (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 6 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 5 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. 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

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's ruling that the suit was time-barred. The claim was founded on tort against the respondent, a scheduled corporation, so under section 2 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969 it had to be brought within twelve months of the cause of action arising. The cause of action accrued on 6 January 1993 when the respondent failed to return all the seized property, yet the suit was filed on 21 June 1994, well outside twelve months. The letter inviting settlement did not suspend time, and relief for mistake under section 5(c) was unavailable because it had not been pleaded and was too vague.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the High Court's dismissal of the suit as time-barred upheld, with costs to the respondent.

Facts

The appellant, Peter Mangeni, trading as Makerere Institute of Commerce, occupied premises controlled by the respondent, the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board, a scheduled corporation. The respondent's enforcement officer evicted him, seized his property and equipment, and had him arrested. The police charged him with offences, but the Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew the charges on 2 October 1992. Following negotiations and the intervention of the Inspector General of Government, the respondent restored some of the seized property and equipment to the appellant on or about 6 January 1993, but not all of it. The appellant then served a notice of intention to sue, seeking recovery of the balance of his property and damages. By a letter dated 27 October 1993 the respondent invited the appellant's advocates to a settlement meeting. The appellant did not file his suit until 21 June 1994.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant's suit was time-barred under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969.
  2. Whether the respondent's letter of 27 October 1993 inviting the appellant to a settlement meeting suspended the running of the limitation period.
  3. Whether the doctrine of relief from the consequences of mistake under section 5(c) extended the limitation period.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation of Actions — Tort against a scheduled corporation — Twelve-month period
An action founded on tort against a scheduled corporation must be brought within twelve months of the date on which the cause of action arose, under section 2 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969.
Limitation of Actions — Suspension of time — Settlement negotiations
Correspondence inviting a party to a settlement meeting does not suspend or postpone the running of the limitation period.
Limitation of Actions — Relief from consequences of mistake — Section 5(c)
Relief from the consequences of a mistake under section 5(c) of the Act requires the mistake to be pleaded and sufficiently particularised; it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
Limitation of Actions — Extension for disability — Section 4
The extension of the limitation period for disability under section 4 of the Act applies only while the plaintiff remains under disability; once the disability ceases, time begins to run.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969 (Act 20 of 1969) s.1
  • Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969 (Act 20 of 1969) s.2
  • Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969 (Act 20 of 1969) s.4
  • Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969 (Act 20 of 1969) s.5(c)
  • Limitation Act Cap.70 s.4(4)

Cases cited (2)

  • (1961) E.A. 468
  • Shah Chotai Fancy Store (1960)

Cases citing this judgment (6)

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.

Mangeni v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal 13 of 1995) [1998] UGSC 31 (22 January 1998)
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.