Posts & Telecommunications Corporation v Lamb (HH 19 of 2002) [2002] ZWHHC 19 (22 January 2002)

Posts & Telecommunications Corporation v Lamb (HH 19 of 2002) [2002] ZWHHC 19 (22 January 2002)

Prescription in respect of the plaintiff's claim against Lamb has run because action was commenced against him more than 3 years after the cause of action arose. The judgment against Jackson novated her debt, creating a new 30-year prescription period, but Lamb only guaranteed the original debt, not the novated debt. The prescription period for Lamb's liability was not extended by the judgment against Jackson.

Citation
[2002] ZWHHC 19
Parties
Plaintiff: Posts & Telecommunications Corporation; Defendant: D C Lamb
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
22 January 2002
Case Number
HH 19 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Suretyship, Prescription of Debts, Novation, Guarantee Liability
Source Language
English
Contract Law Commercial Law Suretyship Prescription of Debts Novation Guarantee Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Posts & Telecommunications Corporation

Plaintiff

D C Lamb

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prescription has run against the plaintiff's claim against the surety (Lamb)
  2. 2 Whether the judgment against the principal debtor (Jackson) novated her indebtedness
  3. 3 Whether the prescription period of the novated debt is 30 years from the date of judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Prescription in respect of the plaintiff's claim against Lamb has run because action was commenced against him more than 3 years after the cause of action arose. The judgment against Jackson novated her debt, creating a new 30-year prescription period, but Lamb only guaranteed the original debt, not the novated debt. The prescription period for Lamb's liability was not extended by the judgment against Jackson.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Prescription has run against the plaintiff's claim against Lamb.
  • Judgment against Jackson novated her indebtedness to the plaintiff.