Arusha. The High Court, Bukoba Sub-Registry, has struck out a civil case in which two citizens were seeking Sh525 million in compensation after finding that the suit was filed outside the legally prescribed time limit.
Civil Application No. 12516 of 2025 was filed by Ruhumuja Mkama and Mapambano Ruhumuja against Sergeant Moses (E 5176), the Inspector General of Police (IGP), the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), and the Attorney General (AG).
The ruling was delivered by Judge Immaculata Banzi on Monday, April 27, 2026, following a preliminary objection raised by the government side, arguing that the matter was time-barred.
The judge said that after considering submissions from both parties, the court agreed with the respondents that the application had been filed outside the statutory time limit.
Basis of the claim
The dispute originated from criminal proceedings in 2017 at the Bukoba Resident Magistrate’s Court, where the two applicants were charged with livestock-related offences.
They were acquitted on June 14, 2018, and the court ordered the return of 16 cattle that had been seized by police.
The prosecution appealed against the decision, but the High Court later dismissed the appeal on October 27, 2020, for being filed out of time.
Following that outcome, the claimants instituted a civil suit alleging malicious prosecution.
They first filed the case on September 25, 2023, but later withdrew it on July 4, 2024, with leave of the court, saying they intended to amend and include additional defendants.
They subsequently refiled the case in February 2025, seeking the return of seven remaining cattle, special damages of Sh25 million, and general damages of Sh500 million.
However, before the matter could proceed to hearing, the government raised a preliminary objection on limitation grounds.
Government argument
The State Attorney submitted that under the law, such claims must be filed within three years from the date the cause of action arises.
He argued that the cause of action arose on October 27, 2020, when the criminal appeal was dismissed, meaning the limitation period expired in October 2023.
He further contended that by February 2025, when the suit was refiled, the plaintiffs were already out of time by more than a year.
Even if the period during which the initial suit was pending was excluded, the State maintained that the claim would still be statute-barred.
Applicants’ position
The applicants opposed the objection, arguing that they had been granted leave to refile the case after withdrawal and therefore should not be bound by the limitation period.
Their counsel submitted that the court’s leave to refile was unconditional and that the original filing had been made within time, hence the subsequent filing should be treated as a continuation.
Court’s decision
In her ruling, Judge Banzi rejected the argument, stating that the law is clear that the withdrawal of a suit with leave to refile does not suspend or extend the limitation period.
She noted that the plaintiffs were still required to comply with statutory timelines as if the initial case had not been filed.
The judge observed that by February 27, 2025, when the case was officially registered under the judiciary’s electronic filing system, more than four years and five months had elapsed since the cause of action arose.
She added that even after deducting the 10 months and nine days during which the first suit was active, the claimants were still out of time by about seven months.
Judge Banzi further emphasised that any extension of time in such circumstances falls under the mandate of the Minister responsible for legal affairs, not the courts.
For those reasons, the court upheld the preliminary objection, struck out the case as time-barred, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
