Wakilii

Registered Trustees of Mengo Hospital v Nakato Costa (Miscellaneous Application 914 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 105 · 2025 Application Granted — Suit Dismissed as Time-Barred AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to dismiss underlying civil suit as time-barred under the Limitation Act
Decision
Underlying civil suit dismissed 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 court held that the respondent's medical negligence suit filed in January 2024 was time-barred under Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, which requires such actions to be brought within three years of the cause of action accruing. The cause of action accrued no later than May 2015 when the respondent was discharged from hospital with full knowledge of the medical procedures performed. The respondent's attempt to invoke Section 25 (fraud or mistake) and Section 21 (disability) failed because these grounds were not pleaded in the plaint and could not be introduced in the reply to the defence.

Outcome

Underlying civil suit dismissed as time-barred

Facts

The respondent was a patient at Mengo Hospital from 9 to 17 May 2015, during which she underwent a hysterectomy. She was discharged on 17 May 2015 with a detailed discharge form documenting the medical interventions. On 16 January 2024, approximately eight years and eight months later, she filed a civil suit alleging medical negligence. The applicant hospital applied to dismiss the suit as time-barred under the Limitation Act. The respondent did not enter appearance in the application but had previously pleaded in her reply to the defence that the limitation period was extended under Section 25 (fraud or mistake) because key information was concealed until June 2023, and under Section 21 (disability) due to lack of knowledge of her condition.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent's claim in HCCS No. 022 of 2024 is barred by limitation of time under Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act Cap 290.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • High Court Civil Suit No. 022 of 2024 dismissed as statute-barred under Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act Cap 290.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation of Actions — Medical Negligence — Accrual of Cause of Action
In medical negligence actions, the cause of action accrues when the injury is sustained or, at the latest, when the plaintiff becomes aware of it, and the three-year limitation period under Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act begins to run from that date.
Limitation of Actions — Grounds of Exemption — Pleading Requirements
Where a suit is instituted after the expiration of the limitation period, Order 7 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires that the plaint must show the grounds upon which exemption from the law of limitation is claimed; grounds not pleaded in the plaint cannot be introduced for the first time in the reply to the written statement of defence.
Limitation Act — Section 25 — Fraud or Mistake — Scope of Application
Section 25 of the Limitation Act, which postpones the limitation period in cases of fraud or mistake, applies mainly to suits for recovery of land and not to tort actions for medical negligence; even if applicable, the fraud or mistake must be pleaded in the plaint and cannot be raised for the first time in subsequent pleadings.
Limitation of Actions — Disability — Legal Incapacity
Under Section 21 of the Limitation Act, disability that extends the limitation period refers to conditions that prevent a person from managing their own legal affairs, such as mental incapacity or being a minor; mere lack of knowledge of the full implications of a medical procedure does not constitute legal disability for purposes of extending the limitation period.
Limitation of Actions — Strict Application — Rejection of Plaint
Statutes of limitation are strict and inflexible enactments whose overriding purpose is to bring finality to litigation; once the limitation period has expired, the court is bound to reject the plaint under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules regardless of the merits of the case.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (17)

  • Madhivani International SA v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2010)
  • Hilton v Sutton Steam Laundry [1946] 1 KB 81
  • Departed Asians Custodian Board v Dr JM Masambu (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2004)
  • Eridad Otabong Waimo v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1990)
  • Gastapo Co Ltd v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 030 of 2021)
  • Grunethal GMBH v Mugisha Richard (Miscellaneous Application No. 0025 of 2023)
  • URA v Uganda Consolidated Properties Ltd (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2000)
  • Re Application by Mustapha Ramathan (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1996)
  • Burkett v. James [1977] 2 All E.R. 801
  • Cartedge v Jopling [1963] AC 758
  • [2023] UGHCCD 108
  • Ababiri Muhamood & 4 Others v Mukomba Ananstasia T/a Taita Wilfred (High Court Civil Suit No. 22 of 2015)
  • Madhivani Group Limited v Simbwa & Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 615 of 2012)
  • Iga v. Makerere University [1992] EA 65
  • Vincent Rule Opio v. Attorney General, [1990-1991] KALR 68
  • Onesiforo Bamuwayira & 2 Or's v. Attorney General (1973) HCB 87
  • Mohammad B Kasasa v Jaspher Buyonga Sirasi Bwogi (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2008)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Registered Trustees of Mengo Hospital v Nakato Costa (Miscellaneous Application 914 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCD 105 (31 July 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.