In 2009, the appellants brought an action before the High Court on behalf of former employees of National Sugar Works Ltd, alleging unlawful termination of their services. The respondents raised a preliminary objection claiming that the suit was time barred. This claim was dismissed by the High Court but accepted in second instance by the Court of Appeal. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellants filed a further appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellants argued that their suit against the respondents was not time barred because they were under disability due to war and rebel activities.

The court considered whether the action was time barred. It noted that s 3 of the Civil Procedure Limitation Act imposes a three-year limit and that s 5 of the same act allows for extension of that limitation if the party who wishes to bring an action was under disability. The court held that the mere fact of being in negotiation does not constitute a disability to file a suit. Further, the court found that the fact that the appellants were in communication with the respondents and government agencies indicates that they were also able to access the courts. Consequently, the court found that the appellants were under no disability and that the time limitation should not be extended. The appeal was dismissed.

The dissenting judgement found that the courts lacked information to determine whether the appellants were under disability or whether their action was time barred. The dissenting judgment concluded that the appeal should have been allowed.