Wakilii

Waibi and 2 Others v Attorney General (Misc Cause No. 142 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 95 · 2022 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to file suit out of time after withdrawal of earlier suit against wrong defendant
Decision
Application for leave to file suit out of time 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 it has no inherent power or discretion to extend time prescribed by a limitation statute where no statutory exception applies. Section 6(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which postpones limitation in cases of mistake, applies only to mistakes relating to the arising of the cause of action, not to counsel's mistake in suing the wrong defendant. A limitation statute is strict and inflexible, and once the limitation period expires, the suit is barred regardless of merits. The application for leave to file suit out of time was dismissed.

Outcome

Application for leave to file suit out of time dismissed

Facts

The applicants had filed Civil Suit No. 242 of 2017 against Bank of Uganda claiming damages for torture, assault, and battery by military officers in a convoy transporting money. During the pendency of that suit, the applicants realised that the Attorney General, not Bank of Uganda, was the proper defendant. On 22 July 2020, the applicants withdrew the suit with the defendant's consent. The applicants then sought leave to file a fresh suit against the Attorney General out of time, arguing that counsel's mistake in suing the wrong defendant constituted sufficient cause for extension of time and fell within the exception under Section 6(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The two-year limitation period for tort actions against government under Section 3(1) of the Act had expired.

Issues

  1. Whether the court can extend time within which an applicant can institute a suit that is barred by the statute of limitation.
  2. Whether the application is competent in law.
  3. Whether the mistake of counsel in suing the wrong defendant constitutes sufficient cause or an exception under Section 6(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to postpone the limitation period.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Procedure for Claiming Exemption from Limitation
Where a suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by the law of limitation, the plaintiff must show grounds for exemption from the limitation law in the pleadings themselves, not by way of a separate application for leave to file out of time.
Statutory Interpretation — Limitation Statutes — Postponement of Limitation Period for Mistake
Section 6(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which postpones the limitation period where an action is for relief from the consequence of a mistake, applies only to mistakes relating to the arising of the cause of action itself, not to mistakes made by counsel or a party in the manner of bringing the action, such as suing the wrong defendant.
Civil Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Court's Power to Extend Statutory Time Limits
Unless a statute expressly provides otherwise, the court has no residual power or inherent jurisdiction to extend time limits set by an Act of Parliament. Where a limitation statute prescribes a time period and the statutory exceptions do not apply, the court cannot exercise discretion under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act or Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to extend time.
Civil Procedure — Limitation of Actions — Nature and Effect of Limitation Statutes
A limitation statute is strict in nature and inflexible and is not concerned with the merits of the case. Once the limitation period expires, the suit is barred by law and cannot be entertained by the court except where the party can take advantage of a statutory exception.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (4)

  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Hilton v Sutton Steam Laundry [1956] 1 KB 73
  • Madhvani International SA v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2010)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Waibi and 2 Others v Attorney General (Misc Cause No. 142 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 95 (26 June 2022)
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.