Wakilii

Chand v Majid and Another (C.A. 17-1933.)

East African Court of Justice · [1933] EACJ 5 · 1933 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Resident Magistrate's Court decision dismissing suit as time-barred
Decision
Matter remitted to Resident Magistrate's Court for trial

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court held that Article 5 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877 has no application to suits in which Order XXXIII of the Civil Procedure Rules is invoked. The procedure under Order XXXIII is entirely different from that contained in Cap. 39 of the Civil Procedure Code (India) 1882 and from Order 33 as originally enacted. The appeal was allowed and the suit remitted for trial.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Resident Magistrate's Court for trial

Facts

The plaintiff sued on a promissory note dated 18 November 1931 by filing a plaint on 24 April 1933 in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Nairobi. The suit was filed under ordinary procedure to recover Sh. 630/02. The plaintiff invoked summary procedure under Order XXXIII Rules 2 and 3. The respondents' advocate successfully argued that Article 5 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877 applied and that the suit was time-barred. The Resident Magistrate held that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether Article 5 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877 applies to suits under Order XXXIII of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Suit remitted to the learned Resident Magistrate for trial.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Summary Procedure — Order XXXIII — Limitation
Article 5 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877 has no application to suits in which Order XXXIII of the Civil Procedure Rules is invoked.
Statutory Interpretation — Limitation Statutes — Application to Different Procedural Regimes
The procedure under Order XXXIII is entirely different from that contained in Cap. 39 of the Civil Procedure Code (India) 1882 and from Order 33 as originally enacted, such that limitation provisions tied to the old procedure do not apply to the new procedure.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Civil Procedure Rules Order XXXIII
  • Indian Limitation Act 1877 Article 5
  • Indian Limitation Act 1877 Article 159
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924 s.106
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance s.83(2)(f)
  • Indian Limitation Act 1877 s.3
  • Indian Limitation Act 1877 s.4
  • Civil Procedure Code 1882 Cap. 39
  • Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1908
  • Indian Limitation Act 1908

Cases cited (1)

  • 7 E.A.L.R. 199

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Chand v Majid and Another (C.A. 17-1933.) [1933] EACJ 5 (1 January 1933)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.