Wakilii

Fakir v Issaji (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1941)

East African Court of Appeal · [1942] EACA 42 · 1942 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Muslim Subordinate Court judgment on promissory note
Decision
Appeal dismissed; judgment of lower court affirmed

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 defence of limitation under the Limitation Ordinance 1934 must be specifically pleaded and cannot be raised orally at trial for the first time, even in a Muslim Subordinate Court. Where an advocate admits the correctness or validity of a promissory note on behalf of his client in a civil suit, formal proof of the document is not required. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; judgment of lower court affirmed

Facts

The respondent sued the appellant on a promissory note for Sh. 136 dated 3 March 1932 in a Muslim Subordinate Court. No written defence was filed. At trial, the appellant's advocate orally raised the defence of limitation and admitted that the appellant was indebted to the respondent in the sum claimed and had signed the promissory note. The Kathi disregarded the oral plea of limitation and gave judgment for the respondent with costs. The appellant appealed, arguing that the defence of limitation should have been considered and that the promissory note should have been formally proved.

Issues

  1. Whether the defence of limitation can be raised orally at trial without being specifically pleaded.
  2. Whether formal proof of a promissory note is required where an advocate admits its validity on behalf of his client.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Muslim Subordinate Courts — Applicable Procedure
The procedure applicable in a Muslim Subordinate Court is that contained in the Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924.
Civil Procedure — Limitation — Pleading Requirements
Where the Limitation Ordinance 1934 is put forward as a defence, it is not sufficient to raise it orally at trial for the first time. By the provisions of section 40 of the Limitation Ordinance 1934, the defence of limitation must be pleaded specifically. This provision applies equally to a Mohammedan defendant in a Muslim Subordinate Court as it does to other persons.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Admission by Advocate
Where, in a civil suit, an advocate admits on behalf of his client the correctness or validity of a promissory note, there is no need of formal proof of the document.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924
  • Limitation Ordinance 1934 s.5(1)
  • Limitation Ordinance 1934 s.40
  • Civil Procedure Ordinance Order 6 Rule 5

Cases cited (1)

  • Baraka binti Said Bakmishi v Salim bin Abed Basawadi (20 K.L.R. Pt. I, p. 34)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Fakir v Issaji (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1941) [1942] EACA 42 (1 January 1942)
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.