Wakilii

Zzizinga and Another v Uganda Commercial Bank (Civil Suit 3 of 1990)

High Court · [1992] UGHCCD 113 · 1992 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary application by defendant to strike off plaint under Order 7 rule 11(d) for being time-barred
Decision
Adult plaintiff's claim struck out as time-barred; minor plaintiffs' claim allowed to proceed

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

A suit against a scheduled corporation founded on tort must be filed within 12 months under the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969. Service of statutory notice within the limitation period does not preserve the right if the plaint is filed outside the limitation period. The action by the adult plaintiff George Zzizinga, filed 17 months after the cause of action arose, was time-barred. However, minor plaintiffs under disability are entitled to an extension of 12 months under section 4 of the 1969 Act, but such extension cannot exceed 3 years from death as prescribed by section 8(2)(b) of the Law Reform Act Cap 74. The minors' action, filed within that combined limitation framework, was allowed to proceed.

Outcome

Adult plaintiff's claim struck out as time-barred; minor plaintiffs' claim allowed to proceed

Facts

On 5 August 1988, the wife of the first plaintiff George Zzizinga was involved in a fatal road accident with a motor vehicle belonging to the defendant Uganda Commercial Bank, and the second plaintiff, the daughter of the first plaintiff, was injured. George Zzizinga brought an action on his own behalf and on behalf of 10 members of the deceased's family under Part II of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 74. The plaint was filed on 23 December 1989, more than 17 months after the accident. A statutory notice of intention to sue was served on the defendant on 20 January 1989, within the 12-month limitation period. The defendant applied to strike off the plaint as time-barred under section 2(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969, which requires actions against scheduled corporations founded in tort to be brought within 12 months. The plaintiffs contended that service of statutory notice within 12 months satisfied the limitation requirement and that minor plaintiffs, being under disability, were entitled to an extension of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the action is barred by limitation against the first plaintiff George Zzizinga in his own capacity.
  2. Whether the action is time-barred in respect of minor children for whom George Zzizinga is suing as next of friend.
  3. Whether the 10 minor children have a valid cause of action before the court as required by law.
  4. Whether service of statutory notice within the limitation period is sufficient to preserve the right of action.
  5. Whether minors under disability are entitled to an extension of the limitation period beyond 12 months but within 3 years under the Law Reform Act.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection in respect of George Zzizinga's claim upheld.
  • George Zzizinga's action against the defendant struck off under Order 7 rule 11(d) as time-barred.
  • Preliminary objection in respect of minor plaintiffs overruled.
  • Minor plaintiffs' action to proceed against the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Limitation of Actions — Scheduled Corporations — Fatal Accident Claims
Under section 2(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969, no action founded on tort against a scheduled corporation shall be brought after the expiration of 12 months from the date on which the cause of action arose. Service of statutory notice within the limitation period does not extend the time for filing the plaint; both the statutory notice and the filing of the plaint must occur within the 12-month statutory period.
Limitation of Actions — Statutory Notice — Commencement of Court Proceedings
A statutory notice of intention to sue is not part of court proceedings. Court proceedings commence only when a plaint is filed in court as provided under Order 4 rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The statutory notice, though addressed to the intended defendant, does not constitute commencement of an action for the purposes of limitation.
Limitation of Actions — Disability — Minors
Under section 4 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969, if the person to whom a right of action accrued was under a disability (including infancy) when the cause of action arose, the action may be brought at any time before the expiration of 12 months from the date when the person ceased to be under disability, notwithstanding that the ordinary period of limitation has expired. A minor qualifies for this extension of time.
Limitation of Actions — Fatal Accidents — Interaction of Statutes
Where a minor plaintiff brings a fatal accident claim under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 74, section 4 of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969 operates to extend the limitation period beyond the 12 months prescribed for scheduled corporations, but not beyond the 3 years prescribed by section 8(2)(b) of the Law Reform Act, which provides that every action under section 7 shall be commenced within 3 years after the death of the deceased. The two Acts must be read together to give effect to the minor's right while respecting the absolute outer limit.
Parties — Law Reform Act — Particulars of Persons on Whose Behalf Action Brought
Section 10 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Cap 74 requires the plaintiff to deliver to the defendant, together with the plaint, full particulars of the persons for whom and on whose behalf the action is brought. The law does not require that the names be listed in the body of the plaint itself; delivery of the particulars in a document attached to the plaint, such as a consent of next of friend properly naming the minor plaintiffs, satisfies the statutory requirement.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kampala City Council v Nuliyati [1971]

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Zzizinga and Another v Uganda Commercial Bank (Civil Suit 3 of 1990) [1992] UGHCCD 113 (24 January 1992)
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.