NA TZHC Dar es Salaam 9
The suit was filed more than six years after the cause of action arose, exceeding the limitation period prescribed by law, and is therefore time-barred.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- NA TZHC Dar es Salaam 9
- Parties
- Plaintiff: WBY Makore alias John Makonyo; Defendant: National Bank of Commerce
- Court
- TZHC
- Jurisdiction
- Tanzania
- Judgment Date
- 1 January 1971
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- Suit dismissed as time-barred
- Legal Topics
- Limitation of Actions, Conversion, Wrongful Detention
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
WBY Makore alias John Makonyo
Plaintiff
National Bank of Commerce
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is barred by limitation under the Law of Limitation Act 1971
Ratio Decidendi
The suit was filed more than six years after the cause of action arose, exceeding the limitation period prescribed by law, and is therefore time-barred.
Court Disposition
Suit dismissed as time-barred
Orders
- Suit dismissed suo motu
- Plaintiff to pay costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA AT DAR ES SALAAM CIVIL CASE NOo 2"32L92 WBY !VJAKORE alias JOHN MAKONYO o ••••••••••• o PLAINTIFF VERSUS. NATIONAL BANK OF cor:1MERCE O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O DEFENDANT · RULING ,, This_ Court, ordered on 24/8/98 for filing of written submissions on the preliminary objection raised itt_ the WSD. The defendant .was ordered ' . to file his submission on or before 8/9/98 and the.plaintiff to respond ·: ~n 18/9/98 an9- reply if any by 25/~/98. The objection raised was. on limitation of time. In terms of section 3 (1) of ·the Law· 0°f Limitation Act 1971 every prodeeding which is :instituted after the p~riod of limitation prescribed 1 shall be dismissed whether or not lih1itation 'has been set up as defence. In otherwords, this court has to determine whether or not this suit is time 'barred regardless of the submission by the defence. This suit was filed mi 18/8/92. The claim is founded on action .in respect of the conversion or wrongful detention of the piaintiff 1 s money plus the briefcase. According to paragraph 4 of the plaint, the }'laintifft s briefcase was forcefully taken by the defendants servants on 19/9/85. By the time the plaint was filed' on 18/8/92, six years had gone p~'t, in terms of Item 24 of ·column one of Part I, ·First Schedule to Act 10/1971. In the premises this court is of the view that. the suit filed. by the plaintiff is elearly barred by limitation and the same is dismissed suo muto, The plaintiff is.to been costs. Judge.