Wakilii

North Kigezi Citizen Company Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 462 of 2009)

High Court · [2016] UGCOMMC 295 · 2016 Plaint Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract — ruling on preliminary objections
Decision
Plaint struck out as time barred — suit dismissed with costs to the defendant

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 court held that the plaintiff's suit for breach of contract arising from events in 1982 was time barred under section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation Act, which requires actions founded on contract against government to be brought within three years. The cause of action arose in 1982 when the contract was breached, not in 2009 when the defendant refused further payment. The payment made in 2007 was ex gratia and could not found a new cause of action. The plaint was struck out with costs to the defendant.

Outcome

Plaint struck out as time barred — suit dismissed with costs to the defendant

Facts

In 1982, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the Government of Uganda through the Ministry of Supplies to purchase two Leyland buses. The plaintiff paid UGX 10,578,032 and the Treasury Officer authorised release of the buses in February 1982, but only one bus was delivered. In November 1990, the Minister of Transport acknowledged the claim and advised that payment for one bus plus interest should be made. After several years, in February 2007, the Ministry of Finance approved payment of UGX 239,400,000. The plaintiff claimed this was insufficient to purchase a replacement bus at current prices and sought the balance of UGX 81,800,000. A statutory notice was served on 2 September 2009, and the suit was filed on 11 December 2009. The defendant raised preliminary objections that the suit was time barred and that the 2007 payment was ex gratia.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is time barred under section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 72.
  2. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.
  3. Whether the payment made by the defendant was an ex gratia payment and could found a cause of action.

Orders

  • The suit is time barred by law.
  • The plaint is struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Limitation — Actions against Government — Commencement of Limitation Period
The limitation period for an action founded on contract against the government begins to run from the date on which the cause of action accrues, which is the date when the breach of contract occurred, not from the date of subsequent negotiations or refusal to make further payments.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Three-Year Period for Contract Claims against Government
Section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 72 provides that no action founded on contract shall be brought against the government after the expiration of three years from the date on which the cause of action arose, and this limitation period is strict, inflexible, and not concerned with the merits of the case.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Effect of Acknowledgment on Limitation Period
A written acknowledgment by the government of a claim does not extend or restart the limitation period; the three-year period would run from the date of the acknowledgment, and if not filed within that period, the suit remains time barred.
Contract Law — Ex Gratia Payments — No Legal Basis for Claim
An ex gratia payment is made without consideration of legal merits and assumes the payer is not legally liable; it relies on the favour and discretion of the grantor and cannot form the basis of a legal claim because it assumes there are no enforceable legal rights in the recipient.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Effect of Negotiations on Limitation Period
Negotiations between parties neither extend the limitation period nor govern the date on which the cause of action arises, nor do they amount to a disability.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Plaint — Time Bar and Cause of Action
Where the plaint shows on its face that the action is time barred or discloses no cause of action, the court must reject or strike out the plaint because the court is barred by law from granting any remedy or relief.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (13)

  • Mohammad B. Kasasa v Jasphar Buyonga Sirasi Bwogi (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2008)
  • Attorney General v Oluoch [1972] EA 392
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Attorney General of Uganda & Another v Omar Awadh & 6 Others [2013] KLR
  • Mawokota Chemical Industries & 2 Others v Attorney General (HCCS No. 77 of 2014)
  • Onesifoko Bamuwayira & 2 Others v Attorney General [1973] HCB 87
  • Buffalo Tungsten Inc v SGS Uganda Limited (HCMA No. 6 of 2012)
  • Eridadi Otabong Waino v Attorney General (1991) HCB 45
  • Pearl Motors Limited v Uganda Commercial Bank (1998) III KALR 1
  • Iga v Makerere University [1972] EA 65
  • Specioza Kalungi & 61 Others v Attorney General & Another (HCCS No. 63 of 2008)
  • Peter Mangeni t/a Makerere Institute of Commerce v DAPC (SCCA No. 18 of 1995)
  • Hilton v Sutton Steam Laundry [1946] 1 KB 81

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.

North Kigezi Citizen Company Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 462 of 2009) [2016] UGCommC 295 (30 September 2016)
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.