Wakilii

National Council of Sports v Sseruwagi (Miscellaneous Application No 305 of 2003)

High Court · [2004] UGHC 17 · 2004 Application Granted — Plaint Rejected as Time Barred AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for dismissal of suit arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 116 of 2003 on grounds of failure to disclose cause of action and time bar
Decision
Plaint rejected as time barred under the Limitation Act 1969

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 a cause of action in personal injury accrues when the plaintiff suffers more than minimal damage, even if the injury is unknown or undiscoverable at that time. Continuing pain or manifestations of an original injury do not give rise to fresh causes of action. The plaintiff's claim for injuries sustained in 1984, filed in 2003, was time barred under section 3 of the Limitation Act 1969. Application allowed; plaint rejected with costs.

Outcome

Plaint rejected as time barred under the Limitation Act 1969

Facts

The respondent/plaintiff was appointed as a full-time coach with the National Council of Sports on 21 December 1967. On 5 July 1984, while in the USA during the Olympic Games, he sustained an injury to his back which he reported to the National Council of Sports. In 2003, the respondent filed suit claiming compensation for those injuries, alleging he had been treated continuously from 1984 to December 2002 and continued to suffer effects of the injury. The applicant/defendant brought an application to dismiss the suit on grounds it failed to disclose a cause of action and was time barred, the accident having occurred 19 years prior.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent/plaintiff's suit disclosed a cause of action.
  2. Whether the respondent/plaintiff's claim for compensation for injuries sustained in 1984 was time barred under the Limitation Act 1969.
  3. Whether continuing effects of an injury constitute a continuing cause of action that prevents the application of limitation periods.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • Plaint rejected under Order 7 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant/defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Personal Injury — Accrual of Cause of Action
A cause of action in personal injury accrues as soon as the plaintiff has suffered damage which is more than minimal, even when the injury is unknown to and cannot be discovered by the sufferer at that time.
Tort Law — Personal Injury — Continuing Effects — Fresh Cause of Action
Continuing pain or effects arising from an original injury constitute manifestations of the original injury and do not give rise to fresh or independent causes of action. Further injury arising from the same wrongful act at a later date does not give rise to a further cause of action unless there is both a new unlawful act and fresh damage.
Civil Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Continuing Torts — Distinction from Personal Injury
Continuing torts such as false imprisonment and nuisance give rise to a fresh cause of action each day the tort continues, but the principle does not extend to personal injuries where the continuing effects are manifestations of a single original injury.
Statutory Interpretation — Limitation Act 1969 — Section 3 — Personal Injuries Actions
Under section 3 of the Limitation Act 1969, actions for damages for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty involving personal injuries must be brought within three years from the date on which the cause of action arose. Where the legislature has not modified the statute to allow for discoverability of latent injuries, courts must apply the law as it stands.
Civil Procedure — Damages — Single Recovery Rule
All damages which result from one and the same cause of action must be recovered at once and at the same time. No special or fresh action can be brought for subsequently accruing damages, all damages consequent upon the unlawful act being in contemplation of law satisfied by one judgment.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Cartledge and Others v E. Jopling & Sons Ltd [1963] AC 758
  • Difasi v Attorney General (1972) EA 335
  • Lamb v Walker (1879) 3 CPD 394
  • Nicklin v Williams (1854) 10 Ex 259
  • Hodsoll v Stallebrass (1839) 11 A & E 30
  • Darley Main Colliery Co Ltd v Mitchell (1886) 11 App Cas 127

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

National Council of Sports v Sseruwagi (Miscellaneous Application No 305 of 2003) [2004] UGHC 17 (8 June 2004)
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.