19990714 TZHC Dar es Salaam

/ IN Tlfr; HIGH COUR'I' OF T./\.NZANIA (DAR ::i:;S S1-\LAA.Iv; DISTRICT REGISTHY) A'r D!-\.R ES SALAAM • CIVIL CASE NO. 20 OF 1997 HIGHLAND SOAP AND ALLIED ) ,) 0 0 0 e O O O O O G It O. ~- • . • PLAINTIFF PRODUC'rs LIMITED . ' -~ .. 1 ,. Versus NA'i'IONAL BANK OF COHMERCE coo............... D2FENDANT R UL I NG CHIPETA, This is a Ruling on a preliminary objection raised by the defendant, National Bank of Commerce, to the effect that this suit is barred by the law of limitation. \ /i th the consent of the court, the parties I advocates filed written 1 submissions. Learned. counsel for the defendant submitted that since the suit is based on contract, and since paragraph 7 of the F:i.rst Schedule to the Law of Limitation Act, 1971 prescribes E, period of six years, and from the pleadings, time started to run in 1989, oO the suit should have been filed, at the latest, by Decerriber, 1995. The plaintiff's learned counsel subc1itted that although the last transaction was on 10th October, 1990, correspondence between the parties continued long after that date to sort out errors in the accounts due to delays caused by the defendant in making remittances. That correspo- ndence •ontinued right through to 6th November, 1996 • • ·.. ~ ti , \,, j 2 I have carefully considered the learned counsels' written submissions and the parties 1 pleadings. I am of the view that in cases like the present, the time starts,to run from the date of the last 2J.cknowledgerneEt of the debt by the defendant or the last communication of d.e.nial of liability upon a contracto In the case of a continuing breach of contract, then section 7 of the Law of Limitation Act comes into play •. In the instant case, the defendant confirmed delays in externalization of the funds deposited with it in July, 1992; and the pleadings suggest that there was continuing breach even by that date. Since this case was filed in. Janu:=:iry, 1997, it was within a period of six years. This suit, therefore~ is not barred by the law of lirni b::,tion. In the upshot, this preliminary objection is without merit and so is hereby dismissed. Costs shall be in the cause. / i\ .Bo Do CliIPI/Ei'-t JUDGE Ruling delivered in Chambers this ;4th day of July, 1999. JUDGE For Plaintiff: Absent For Defenda..11t:. /1.bsent