Wakilii

Mangeni v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board [1998] UGSC 26

Supreme Court · 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 the suit as time-barred
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the High Court ruling that the suit was time-barred was upheld

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

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an action founded on tort against a scheduled corporation must be brought within twelve months of the date the cause of action arose under section 2(1)(c) of Act 20 of 1969. The cause of action arose on 6 January 1993, so the suit, filed on 20 June 1994, was out of time. An invitation to negotiate settlement did not suspend the running of the limitation period, and the doctrine of mistake under section 5(c) could not assist the appellant where it had not been pleaded or raised in the court below. The High Court ruling was upheld.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; the High Court ruling that the suit was time-barred was upheld

Facts

The appellant operated an unincorporated educational business, Makerere Institute of Commerce, in a building belonging to the respondent at Plot 399 Sekanyolya Road, Kampala. Around 1988-1989 the respondent required the appellant to vacate the premises. On 29 March 1989 the respondent evicted the appellant, seized his property and equipment, and had him arrested and charged. The Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew the criminal charges on 2 October 1992. Following negotiations and the intervention of the Inspector General of Government, some of the appellant's properties were returned to him on 6 January 1993. The appellant then served a notice of intention to sue to recover the balance of his property and damages, but did not file Civil Suit No. 422 of 1994 until 20 June 1994.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant's suit, founded on tort against a scheduled corporation, was time-barred under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969.
  2. Whether the respondent's letter of 27 October 1993 inviting settlement negotiations suspended or postponed the running of the limitation period.
  3. Whether the doctrine of mistake under section 5(c) of Act 20 of 1969 postponed the limitation period where mistake was not pleaded.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Ruling and orders of the High Court upheld.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation of Actions — Actions Against Scheduled Corporations — Twelve-Month Period
An action founded on tort against a scheduled corporation must be brought within twelve months from the date on which the cause of action arose, by virtue of section 2(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969.
Limitation of Actions — Effect of Settlement Negotiations on Running of Time
An offer or invitation to negotiate a settlement, even where genuine negotiations are underway or contemplated, has no effect on the running of the limitation period; a party must still serve any statutory notice and file the suit within the prescribed time.
Limitation of Actions — Mistake Exception — Requirement to Plead
The postponement of the limitation period under section 5(c) of Act 20 of 1969 for relief from the consequences of a mistake cannot be relied upon where the mistake was neither pleaded nor raised in the court below.
Limitation of Actions — Disability — Extension Under Section 4
Where a person entitled to bring an action was under a disability when the right of action accrued, the action may be brought within twelve months of the date the disability ceased; time runs from when the disability ends.

Legislation cited (6)

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

Cases cited (2)

  • African Overseas Trading Co v Acharya (1963) EA 468
  • Shariff & Co v Chotai Fancy Store (1960) EA 374

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.

Mangeni v Departed Asians Property Custodian Board [1998] UGSC 26 (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.