The High Court has struck out a lawsuit filed by retired army officer Lt Grace Kafuko against Centenary Bank, saying that he waited too long to take legal action over his arrest and the impounding of his vehicle.
Justice Joyce Kavuma agreed with Centenary Bank that Kafuko’s claims were filed outside the period allowed by law and that the suit did not disclose a valid cause of action against the bank.
The dispute can be traced to a loan transaction dating back to April 2008 when Kafuko obtained a loan of Shs15 million from Centenary Bank.
As security for the loan, he pledged several vehicles, including a Toyota Hiace and a Mitsubishi Rosa bus.
Trouble began in October 2009 when the bank reported to police that Kafuko had allegedly altered the engine, body and registration details of one of the vehicles that had been offered as security for the loan.
Kafuko was arrested, charged with forgery, and his bus was impounded.
In 2023, Kafuko sued the bank and the Attorney General seeking declarations that his arrest was malicious and unjustified and that the impounding and detention of his vehicle were illegal and unlawful.
He also wanted the court to order the return of the vehicle or payment of its monetary value.
The bank responded by filing a separate application asking the court to strike out the suit before a full hearing could take place.
Centenary Bank’s lawyers from MMAKS Advocates argued that all the events complained about happened in October 2009, more than 15 years before the suit was filed.
They told court that the law requires actions founded on tort to be filed within six years.
The bank further argued that Kafuko had no valid claim against it because the arrest and impounding of the vehicle were carried out by police officers, who are agents of the Attorney General and not agents of the bank.
Kafuko’s lawyers from Were Associated Advocates counter-argued that the case was not time-barred because the real cause of action arose in 2022 when the bank finally issued loan clearance documents and account statements confirming that he had completed repayment of the loan.
According to Kafuko, he had been waiting for the release of his vehicle and only discovered after obtaining the clearance documents that he could not recover it.
His lawyers argued that from 2009 until 2022, he had been fulfilling conditions imposed for the release of the vehicle and therefore time should not start running until those conditions had been satisfied.
They also maintained that the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action because Kafuko had ownership rights in the vehicle and had suffered loss after it was impounded and never returned.
Nalule defaulted on a loan and Vision Fund sold her truck. She ran to court and lost
Justice Kavuma said the facts giving rise to the claim occurred in 2009 when Kafuko was arrested, and the vehicle was seized.
“The arrest of the respondent by Uganda Police, and the impounding and detention of the motor vehicle as well as the alleged loss of income all trace back to October 2009 when these actions occurred,” she said.
She added that the issuance of loan clearance documents in 2022 did not create a new cause of action.
Justice Kavuma found that limitation time started running in 2009 when Kafuko knew about the arrest and seizure of the vehicle.
“It is clear that the respondent was arrested and his motor vehicle impounded in 2009. The suit was filed in 2023. This is after 15 years without the respondent taking any action in the matter,” she ruled.
She said that Kafuko had not pleaded any legal exception that would allow him to bring the case outside the six-year limitation period.
Justice Kavuma said Kafuko needed to demonstrate that the police officers were acting under the bank’s control or direction.
“The averments in the plaint do not show any link between the applicant and the police officers who were carrying out their official duties. The respondent/plaintiff has failed to show any facts linking the applicant and the arresting officers as the servants or agents of the applicant,” she stated
As a result, she concluded that the suit disclosed no cause of action against Centenary Bank and struck it out.
Although the bank won the application, Justice Kavuma did not award costs to either side.
