Wakilii

Municipal Board of Mombasa v Ogilvie (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 117 · 1950 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya dismissing suit on grounds of limitation
Decision
Appeal dismissed; suit remains dismissed on grounds of limitation

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 dismissed the appeal, holding that the injury for which special damages were claimed occurred no later than the date of completion of the contractor's work, and the claim was therefore barred by limitation. The court further held that even if a claim might lie for general damages arising from the architect's issue of final certificates, no such claim was made on the pleadings, and the expression 'further or other relief' was not wide enough to cover an award for general damages.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; suit remains dismissed on grounds of limitation

Facts

The appellant Municipal Board employed a contractor, Hem Singh, to erect buildings at a cost of approximately £17,000 under two contracts dated March and July 1946. The respondent was engaged as architect with duties including preparation of plans, supervision, and issue of certificates. The buildings were completed in April 1947. After a six-month retention period, the respondent issued final certificates on 5 April 1948, and final payments of approximately £1,900 were made in May 1948. By 1950, grave defects of design, materials and workmanship caused the buildings to become dilapidated and dangerous. The appellant spent approximately £7,250 repairing the defects. The full extent of defects was not ascertained until February 1952, and repair work was not completed until September 1952. On 1 April 1954, the appellant sued both the contractor and the respondent for breach of contract and negligence, claiming the cost of remedying defects as special damages. The Supreme Court dismissed the suit on grounds of limitation. The appellant appealed only against the dismissal as to the respondent.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation where final certificates were issued less than six years before action brought.
  2. Whether the issue of final certificates constituted a separate and severable breach of contract giving rise to a distinct cause of action.
  3. Whether a claim for general damages could be sustained under a prayer for 'further or other relief' where no specific claim for general damages was pleaded.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.
  • Costs arising from the filing of the notice of cross-appeal disallowed as it was filed unnecessarily.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Limitation of Actions — Breach of Contract — Date of Accrual of Cause of Action
Where special damages are claimed for the cost of repairing defective work by a contractor, the injury for which those damages are claimed occurs no later than the date of completion of the contractor's work, and a subsequent breach of contract by an architect in issuing final certificates cannot give rise to a fresh cause of action for those same damages.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Prayer for Relief — General Damages
A prayer for 'further or other relief' in a plaint is not wide enough to cover an award of general damages where no specific claim for general damages has been pleaded.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Limitation — Cause of Action Must Support Decree
It is not sufficient for an appellant whose suit has been dismissed on grounds of limitation to show that the plaint discloses a technical cause of action; it must be a cause of action which will, if established, result in a decree in the appellant's favour.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Municipal Board of Mombasa v Ogilvie (Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1955) [1950] EACA 117 (1 January 1950)
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.