Wakilii

Doshi v Patel (Civil Suit No. 326 of 1952)

East African Court of Appeal · [1953] EACA 35 · 1953 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit on a promissory note
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff with costs

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

Held that an unstamped foreign promissory note is admissible in evidence where presentation for payment is not a legal necessity against the maker under section 88 of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance. The Indian Limitation Act 1908 does not extinguish the contract but merely bars the remedy procedurally, and therefore does not apply under section 37(2) of the Limitation Ordinance. The applicable limitation period is six years under section 51 of the Limitation Ordinance. Judgment for plaintiff.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff with costs

Facts

The defendant made a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Bombay on 24 October 1947 for Rupees 5,950 (equivalent to Sh. 8,925). On 19 August 1952, the plaintiff demanded payment from the defendant, who failed to pay. The plaintiff then sued the defendant on 6 September 1952, both parties then being resident in Mombasa. The defendant did not dispute that he was the maker of the note or that he had not met it. The note was never stamped nor presented for payment. The defendant raised two defences: first, that the note was inadmissible in evidence because it was unstamped contrary to section 22 of the Stamp Ordinance; second, that the claim was statute-barred under the Indian Limitation Act 1908, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for promissory notes.

Issues

  1. Whether an unstamped foreign promissory note is inadmissible in evidence under section 22 of the Stamp Ordinance where presentation for payment was not a legal necessity.
  2. Whether the Indian Limitation Act 1908 applies to bar a claim on a promissory note made in India but sued upon in Kenya after three years but within six years of making.
  3. Whether section 37(2) of the Limitation Ordinance applies where foreign law merely bars the remedy rather than extinguishing the contract.

Orders

  • Judgment entered against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in the terms prayed.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Stamp Ordinance — Foreign Promissory Note — Admissibility of Unstamped Note
Section 22 of the Stamp Ordinance requiring stamping before presentation for payment applies as against the maker only where presentation for acceptance or payment is a legal necessity. Where the defendant is the maker of a promissory note not payable at a particular place, presentation for payment is not necessary to render him liable under section 88(1) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance, and therefore section 22 does not require stamping as a condition of admissibility.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Foreign Law of Limitation — Distinction Between Extinguishment and Remedy
Section 37(2) of the Limitation Ordinance applies a foreign law of limitation as a defence only where the foreign law has extinguished the contract and not merely barred the remedy. A foreign limitation statute that provides procedurally that no action may be maintained after the expiry of the limitation period does not extinguish the contract and therefore does not apply to suits instituted in Kenya courts.
Contract Law — Limitation — Indian Limitation Act 1908 — Effect on Contractual Rights
The Indian Limitation Act 1908 extinguishes the remedy but does not destroy the right except in cases covered by section 28 of that Act, which applies only to suits for possession of property (chattels or land) and not to debts arising from promissory notes. Limitation under that Act is procedural and applicable only in Indian courts.
Commercial Law — Bills of Exchange — Promissory Notes — Liability of Maker Without Presentation
Under section 88(1) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance, presentation for payment is not necessary to render the maker of a promissory note liable where the note is not made payable at a particular place.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Stamp Ordinance (Cap. 259) s.22
  • Stamp Ordinance (Cap. 259) s.39
  • Bills of Exchange Ordinance (Cap. 291) s.88
  • Bills of Exchange Ordinance (Cap. 291) s.88(1)
  • Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 11) s.37(2)
  • Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 11) s.51
  • Indian Limitation Act 1908 s.3
  • Indian Limitation Act 1908 s.28

Cases cited (3)

  • Griffin v Weatherby (1867-8) 3 QB 753
  • Gajadhar v Jagannath (1924) ILR 46 All 775
  • Baleswar v Latafat (1945) ILR 24 Pat 249

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Doshi v Patel (Civil Suit No. 326 of 1952) [1953] EACA 35 (1 January 1953)
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.