universal auto electrical hardware 1986 ltd vs nic another 2006 tzhccomd 52 13 february 2006

universal auto electrical hardware 1986 ltd vs nic another 2006 tzhccomd 52 13 february 2006

The cause of action arose upon repudiation of promises to pay on 22 September 2003, making the application within the limitation period under section 7 of the Law of Limitation Act.

Citation
universal auto electrical hardware 1986 ltd vs nic another 2006 tzhccomd 52 13 february 2006
Parties
Applicant: Universal Auto Electrical & Hardware (1986) Limited; Respondent: N.I.C.; Respondent: PSRC
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
13 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Commercial Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
Preliminary objection dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Preliminary Objection, Continuing Breach
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Limitation of Actions Preliminary Objection Continuing Breach

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Universal Auto Electrical & Hardware (1986) Limited

Applicant

N.I.C.

Respondent

PSRC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Commercial Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is time-barred under the Law of Limitation Act, 1971
  2. 2 Whether section 7 of the Law of Limitation Act applies due to continuing breach

Ratio Decidendi

The cause of action arose upon repudiation of promises to pay on 22 September 2003, making the application within the limitation period under section 7 of the Law of Limitation Act.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Preliminary objection dismissed
  • Applicant awarded costs