Wakilii

Mitha v John (C.A. No. 22-1936)

East African Court of Appeal · [1936] EACA 145 · 1936 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from dismissal of money-lending claim by Resident Magistrate, Mombasa
Decision
Appeal dismissed; original dismissal of money-lending claim upheld

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

A letter from a debtor that merely referred to an oral promise to settle a general indebtedness in a month or two, and was uncertain as to the precise amount to be paid, did not constitute a sufficient written undertaking to pay within the meaning of the proviso to section 17 of the Money-lenders Ordinance. The proviso requires both a written acknowledgment of the amount due and a written promise to pay that specific amount. The appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; original dismissal of money-lending claim upheld

Facts

The appellant, a registered money-lender, sued the respondent for Sh. 800 and interest on two promissory notes dated 30 August 1934 and 7 November 1934. The suit was commenced on 21 February 1936, more than twelve months after the causes of action accrued. In response to a demand for payment, the respondent sent a letter dated 27 September 1935 acknowledging a principal debt of Sh. 800 and referring to a previous oral discussion in which he stated he would settle the indebtedness in a month or two. The letter expressed uncertainty about the total amount claimed by the appellant. The Resident Magistrate dismissed the suit as barred by section 17 of the Money-lenders Ordinance, which requires proceedings to be commenced within twelve months unless the debtor provides a written acknowledgment and undertaking to pay.

Issues

  1. Whether a letter from the debtor constituted a sufficient written acknowledgment of the amount due and a written undertaking to pay that amount within the meaning of the proviso to section 17 of the Money-lenders Ordinance.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Money-lending — Limitation — Written Undertaking to Pay
A written undertaking to pay within the meaning of the proviso to section 17 of the Money-lenders Ordinance must be a clear written promise to pay the specific amount acknowledged as due, not merely a reference to an oral promise to settle a general indebtedness at some future time.
Money-lenders Ordinance — Strict Construction of Limitation Proviso
The Money-lenders Ordinance is intended to be exacting and its limitation provisions must be read strictly as they stand. A creditor wishing to escape the penalty of limitation must ensure that the terms of the proviso are strictly complied with.
Acknowledgment of Debt — Certainty of Terms
Where a letter mentions multiple different sums and is uncertain as to which amount is to be paid, it does not constitute a sufficient written undertaking to pay a specific amount for the purposes of extending a limitation period.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Money-lenders Ordinance (Ord. 45 of 1932) s.17
  • Money-lenders Ordinance (Ord. 45 of 1932) s.10

Cases cited (1)

  • Ward v Tibbarts [1936] 2 All ER 656

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mitha v John (C.A. No. 22-1936) [1936] EACA 145 (1 January 1936)
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.