Wakilii

De Souza and Another v De Souza and Another (C.A. 31-1932.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1932] EACA 52 · 1932 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Supreme Court order dismissing execution application as time-barred
Decision
Matter remitted to Supreme Court for execution application to be dealt with on the merits

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 of Appeal held by majority that section 230 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1882 provides an independent period of limitation of twelve years from the date of the decree for execution applications, and that Article 179 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877 does not apply where an application for execution has been made and granted within the period prescribed by Article 179. An execution application made within twelve years of the decree is not barred by limitation.

Outcome

Matter remitted to Supreme Court for execution application to be dealt with on the merits

Facts

The appellants obtained a consent judgment against the first and third defendants on 9 October 1923 for Shs. 7,589/79. In September 1924, they applied for attachment and sale of the defendants' property. That attachment was raised in October 1924. No further execution steps were taken until August 1932, when the appellants applied to attach the third defendant's salary. The third defendant objected that the application was barred by limitation under Article 179 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877, which prescribes a three-year limitation period from the last application for execution. The Supreme Court upheld the objection and dismissed the application. The appellants appealed, arguing that section 230 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1882 provides a twelve-year limitation period from the date of the decree.

Issues

  1. Whether Article 179 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877 prescribes the period of limitation for execution of a decree, or whether section 230 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1882 provides an independent period of limitation of twelve years from the date of the decree.
  2. Whether an application for execution made more than three years after a previous application, but within twelve years of the decree, is barred by limitation.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Application remitted to the Supreme Court to be dealt with on the merits.
  • Costs in the Court below to follow the event.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Execution of Decrees — Limitation Period — Interaction between Article 179 of Indian Limitation Act 1877 and Section 230 of Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1882
Where an application for execution of a decree for the payment of money or delivery of other property is made and granted within the period prescribed by Article 179 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877, section 230 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1882 applies and provides a limitation period of twelve years from the date of the decree, and Article 179 has no further application.
Statutory Interpretation — Limitation Statutes — Construction of Article 179 Indian Limitation Act 1877 — Reference to Section 230 Civil Procedure Code
Article 179 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877 expressly recognizes that a period of limitation is prescribed by section 230 of the Civil Procedure Code by bracketing Article 180 and section 230 as being excepted from the provisions of Article 179. If cases coming within Article 180 are not controlled by Article 179, cases coming within section 230 are likewise not controlled by Article 179.
Civil Procedure — Execution of Decrees — Section 230 as Law of Limitation — Distinction from Procedural Bar
Section 230 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1882 is a law of limitation which must be applied in a case where an application to execute a decree for the payment of money has been made and granted. It is not merely a procedural provision preventing the grant of execution after twelve years.
Civil Procedure — Execution of Decrees — Purpose of Section 230 — Prevention of Indefinite Keeping Alive of Decrees
In the absence of section 230 of the Civil Procedure Code, a decree could be kept alive indefinitely by making fresh applications within the three-year period provided by Article 179. The object and effect of section 230 is to limit such applications to a period of twelve years from the date of the decree.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Indian Limitation Act 1877 Art.179
  • Indian Limitation Act 1877 Art.180
  • Indian Limitation Act 1877 Art.178
  • Indian Code of Civil Procedure 1882 s.230
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924 s.35
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Code 1924 s.104
  • Kenya Civil Procedure Code 1924 s.2(3)

Cases cited (11)

  • Anderson and Another v Phaker Dass (1924-1926) 10 EALR 73
  • Kanji Dharmsi and Another v Shah Laikhamsi Rajsi (Vol. XI) EALR 46
  • Beharilal v. Barness, Punj. Rec. No. 109 of 1889
  • Ganapathi v Balasundara (1884) 7 Madras 540
  • Kunhi Mannan v Seshagiri Bhakthan (1882) 5 Madras 141
  • Coverdale & Stanley v Saleh Mohamed (1931) 13 EALR 43
  • 1891, 3 Punjab References 8
  • 1894, 3 Punjab References 12
  • 1894, 3 Punjab References 76
  • Gholam Jilani, etc. v. Ganga Ram, etc., 1891, 3 Punj. Ref., page 8
  • Jhandw, etc. v. Mohan Lal, 1894, 3 Punj. Ref., page 76

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

De Souza and Another v De Souza and Another (C.A. 31-1932.) [1932] EACA 52 (1 January 1932)
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.