Wakilii

Sam Kirembwe v Attorney General (Civil Suit No.73 Of 2001) (Civil Suit No.73 of 2001)

High Court · [2006] UGHC 72 · 2006 Plaint Rejected AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil suit for breach of contract; defendant raised preliminary objections during plaintiff's case
Decision
Plaint rejected as statute-barred; suit dismissed

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 High Court held that a suit for breach of contract against Government must be brought within three years from the date the cause of action arose under section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Where the cause of action arose in 1988 but suit was filed in 2001, the claim was statute-barred. Acknowledgement of indebtedness does not extend the limitation period where the acknowledgement itself occurred more than three years before suit was filed. The plaint was rejected as barred by limitation.

Outcome

Plaint rejected as statute-barred; suit dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff claimed he supplied food items to various departments of the Uganda Police Force in 1988. He had previously sued in 1989 regarding some of the supplies and obtained judgment, but did not file suit regarding the present claim until 2001. The defendant raised preliminary objections that the suit was barred by limitation and that it was res judicata. The plaintiff argued that letters from the Inspector General of Police and the Permanent Secretary acknowledging the debt extended the limitation period under section 22(4) of the Limitation Act. The court examined whether the suit filed 13 years after the cause of action arose was statute-barred under the three-year limitation period for contract actions against Government.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation under section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, having been filed more than three years after the cause of action arose.
  2. Whether acknowledgement of debt by the defendant extends the limitation period under section 22(4) of the Limitation Act.
  3. Whether the suit is res judicata, the same subject matter having been determined in a previous suit between the same parties.

Orders

  • The plaint is rejected.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Limitation — Actions Against Government in Contract
Under section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 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.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Acknowledgement of Debt
Where a defendant acknowledges indebtedness, the cause of action is deemed to have arisen on the date of such acknowledgement under section 22(4) of the Limitation Act, but if the acknowledgement itself occurred more than three years before suit was filed, the suit remains statute-barred.
Civil Procedure — Rejection of Plaint — Suit Barred by Law
Under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules, where a suit is barred by limitation, the plaint must be rejected even if the preliminary objection is raised during the hearing rather than at the commencement of the suit.
Civil Procedure — Res Judicata — Different Subject Matter
For the doctrine of res judicata to apply, the matter in issue must be the same as that determined in a previous suit between the same parties. Where the goods claimed in the present suit are of a different delivery with different invoices and values from those in the previous suit, the doctrine does not apply.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (5)

  • Iga v Makerere University [1972] EA 65
  • National Pharmacy Ltd v KCC [1979] HCB
  • Arua Motor Dealers v Attorney General (HCCS No. 1451 of 1986)
  • Maria Kevina Sentamu v Kikondo Kyaterekera Growers Cooperative Society Ltd (HCCS No. 67 of 1995)
  • Sam Kirembwe v Attorney General (HCCS No. 81 of 1989)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sam Kirembwe v Attorney General (Civil Suit No.73 Of 2001) (Civil Suit No.73 of 2001) [2006] UGHC 72 (1 June 2006)
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.