Tabitha Lalango Lutara v Attorney General (Civil Appeal 26 of 2011)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit founded in tort against the Government, filed about 19 years after the cause of action arose in 1977, was time barred under section 3(1) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. A party relying on acknowledgement to revive a cause of action must specifically plead the exemption from limitation, which the appellant failed to do. The court found no written, signed acknowledgement of liability by the respondent as required under the Limitation Act, and held that ongoing negotiations do not affect the limitation period. The trial court should have rejected the plaint rather than dismissed the suit, but the appeal lacked merit.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court dismissal of the time-barred suit upheld

Facts

In 1977, the Government of Uganda under the Idi Amin regime forcefully seized and took over the late Wilson O. Lutara's dairy farm, known as the 'Abaka Ranch', comprised in leasehold register Volume 701 Folio 1 at Loima, Kilak in Acholi district, measuring approximately 1475 hectares. In 1983 the Government handed the farm back to the deceased in a state of plunder, with most of the cattle lost and basic infrastructure destroyed. The alleged loss was valued at approximately UGX 4,249,598,000. The deceased demanded compensation but in vain. He eventually filed a suit against the respondent seeking to recover the losses; the suit was filed on 7 September 2006, initially in Kampala and later transferred to Gulu High Court. The appellant, as administrator of the estate, sought a declaration of entitlement to compensation, interest and costs. The High Court dismissed the suit, finding it filed out of time and barred by law.

Issues

1. Whether the learned trial judge erred in law and fact when he held that the plaintiff's suit was time barred.

Orders

• Appeal dismissed.
• No order as to costs given the absence of the respondent at the hearing of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act s.3(1)
• Limitation Act cap 80 s.22(4)
• Limitation Act cap 80 s.23(1)
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 6
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 rule 11
• Rules of the Court of Appeal Rule 30(1)(a)

Cases cited (4)

• Madhvani International v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2010)
• Hilton vs Sutton Steam Laundry [1946] 1 KB at page 65
• Iga vs Makerere University (1972) EA 65
• Peter Mangeni t/a Makerere Institute of Commerce v Departed Asian Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1995)

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.

• Kamuli John v Mangadalena Babirye and Others (Civil Appeal No.155 of 2018)

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